Alice visited her local police station in response to Detective Barker's request that Alice meets with him at her convenience. The Detective wanted to discuss a series of burglaries that had occurred in a neighborhood near Alice's home. Though he suspected that Alice had committed the burglaries, Detective Barker explained that she was free to leave the station at any time; that she could take breaks from speaking with Barker whenever she wished; and that, regardless of what she said to Barker, Alice would not be arrested that day. At the outset of her conversation with Barker, Alice repeatedly denied any involvement in the burglaries. In response, Barker truthfully told Alice that several pieces of physical evidence implicating her in the crimes had been collected from the burglarized residences, and questioned Alice about her whereabouts on the nights the burglaries occurred. Alice then asked Barker whether he could "get her a good deal" from the Prosecutor if she confessed her involvement in the crimes. Barker responded by stating that the Prosecutor was responsible for making decisions regarding potential charges or plea bargains, but that Barker believed that "honesty is always the best policy." Alice then proceeded to make incriminating statements regarding her participation in the burglaries. Alice's attorney has filed a motion to suppress the statements she made at the station. Evaluate the following arguments argued in their motion:

1. The defense argues that Alice's incriminating statements should be suppressed on due process grounds because Detective Barker's statement that "honesty is always the best policy" was an improper promise of leniency made to induce her confession and rendered her statements involuntary.

2. Suppose that instead of telling Alice that the district attorney was responsible for decisions regarding charges and plea bargains, Barker stated that, if she cooperated, he could "help her out" and would make a "recommendation" to the Prosecutor that Alice gets a plea offer involving probation rather than jail time. How does this affect the analysis of Alice's voluntariness argument?

3. Returning to the original factual scenario, suppose that Barker was not being truthful when he told Alice that several pieces of incriminating evidence had been discovered at the crime scenes. How does this affect the analysis of Alice's voluntariness argument?

4. Alice argues that her statements should be suppressed because Barker did not provide her with Miranda warnings at any point in their interaction. Is this a basis for suppression under the original facts? Why or why not Your Honor?

Case #2:

Raleigh police officer Susan Carter was dispatched to a local musical instrument store at approximately 11:30 p.m. in response to a 911 call reporting "two suspicious men acting suspiciously" in the vicinity of the store. The store had been closed for business since 4:00 p.m. that day. Carter was driving her marked patrol car and was in uniform. Upon arriving at the store, Carter observed two men wearing backpacks emerging from a side entrance of the building. Carter announced herself as a police officer and commanded the men to "freeze." The men immediately began running; Carter gave chase and eventually discovered one of the men, Jim Doyle, hiding behind the dumpster of a nearby business. Carter drew her Taser, began handcuffing Doyle, and asked him "why he was running." Doyle stated that he had been "stealing stuff from the store and didn't want to get caught." A pat-down search of Doyle revealed a screwdriver, a pair of gloves, and numerous items of merchandise bearing price tags from the store. Carter then told Doyle that he was "under arrest," advised him of his Miranda rights, and placed him in the back of her patrol car. As she drove him to the police station for booking, Carter asked Doyle several questions about his activities at the store and Doyle responded with incriminating statements. Doyle has filed a motion to suppress the statements he made while being handcuffed and the statements he made while being transported to the station. Evaluate the following arguments made in their Motion to Suppress:

1. Doyle argues that the statement he made while being handcuffed in response to Carter's question about "why he was running" should be suppressed because Carter had not yet given him Miranda warnings and Carter's question amounted to custodial interrogation.

2. Suppose that Carter did not ask Doyle any questions while handcuffing him and that Doyle angrily stated: "What are you doing? That other guy was breaking into the store; I was just walking by." How does this affect the analysis of whether the statement should be suppressed under Miranda?

3. Returning to the original facts, suppose that after he had been given Miranda warnings, Doyle stated "Maybe I should get a lawyer." Carter then placed him in her patrol car and asked him questions about his activities at the store. Doyle gave incriminating responses. Doyle argues that he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel with his statement about getting a lawyer and any statements he made in response to subsequent questioning by Carter should be suppressed.

4. On the same facts as those presented in prompt 3, immediately above, Doyle makes the additional argument that the fact that he responded to Carter's questions is insufficient to establish a waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights. Doyle claims that it was necessary for Carter to secure a written waiver. Is this correct?

5. Returning to the original facts, suppose that after he had been given Miranda warnings, Doyle stated "I don't want to talk." Carter then placed him in her patrol car and asked him questions about his activities at the store. Doyle remained silent throughout most of Carter's questioning but eventually gave incriminating responses to a few questions Carter asked as she pulled into the station. Doyle argues that he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and any statements he made in response to subsequent questioning by Carter should be suppressed.

6. Returning to the original facts, suppose that after giving Doyle Miranda warnings but before asking him questions during the drive to the station Carter stated: "You know Jim, if you'll just tell me what happened I can talk to the district attorney about getting you a good deal." Doyle then confessed his involvement in the crime. Doyle argues that Carter's statement was an improper promise of leniency made to induce his confession and rendered his statements involuntary. Is this a valid argument in light of the fact that Doyle was given Miranda warnings?

7. Returning to the original facts, suppose that the caller who reported the suspicious activity also told the 911 operator that the men "appeared to be carrying pistols." The facts are otherwise the same as in the original scenario except that in the process of handcuffing him, Carter observed an empty pistol holster in Doyle's waistband and asked him "Where's the gun?" Doyle nodded towards some nearby shrubbery and said "In the bushes." Doyle argues that a pistol Carter recovered from the shrubs, as well as his statement identifying its location, should be suppressed because Carter did not give him Miranda warnings prior to asking about the gun.