Carl works as an accountant for SuperTech, a fast and upcoming successful software company. Carl was running late to work when he saw his usual bus arriving at the bus stop across the street. Knowing that the next bus wouldn't come until 30 minutes, Carl runs across the street without looking both ways or using a cross walk and is hit by Farah who was driving her car down the road above the speed limit. Carl suffers a broken leg and is rushed to the hospital.

As Carl is recovering in the hospital, he is visited by the police who suspect that Carl is involved in embezzling money from SuperTech. The police notice Carl's briefcase beside his hospital bed. The police grab the briefcase, open it, and find Carl's laptop inside. Upon inspection of Carl's laptop, the police locate incriminating bank statements showing large sums of money going from SuperTech into Carl's personal bank account. The police then inform Carl of his legal rights and proceed to interrogate Carl about the embezzlement at which point Carl confesses to the crime and is arrested. At trial, Carl asks the court to exclude (throw out) the following:

(1) his confession, and

(2) the evidence seized from his laptop.

#1 LIST what laws apply to Carl's argument to exclude (1) his confession and (2) evidence seized from his laptop?Answer each issue separately.

#2 Will Carl be successful in his argument to exclude (1) his confession and (2) evidence seized from his laptop? Why or Why not? Please apply the law to the facts. Answer each issue separately. Apply the law(s) to the facts.Explain why the laws you mentioned in #1 apply to the story above.

#3 What case applies to excluding Carl's confession and why?