Police receive an unsigned note from someone who claims that they are planning a massive school shooting at the nearby high school. The note specifies a date and time. Police officers converge on the high school at the specified time and place the school on "lock down." While an investigative team are surveying the area they come upon Michael Bell, a young man parked in a car appearing to be observe the scene with binoculars. The officers demand that Bell get out of the car. As he was exiting the car his ipad falls to the ground - apparently it had been perched on his lap. An officer picks up the ipad and notices that the note that was received by police was visible in an open email on the "home screen." The Bell was asked where the guns were. Bell replied "suckers! There are no guns! You never heard of Senior Prank day! At least you losers got some excitement!" Bell is immediately arrested for making a terrorist threat and faces 25 years in jail if found guilty.

You are a judge being asked to rule on the admissibility of Bell's statements to police. In a research paper of no more than 2500 words and no less than 1500 words, respond to the motion citing relevant case law and the pertinent facts of this case. Be sure to synthesize the facts of this case with the relevant law.