Review this case regarding fraudulent credit cards and summarize the interrogation process the Fraud Auditor would use in the case of Presently before this Court are two Motions to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 61, 62) filed by Defendant Carrie Aker and a Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 57) filed by Mario Valentine. Because the Pennsylvania State Police ("PSP") failed to provide Defendant Aker Miranda warnings prior to her custodial interrogation on September 3, 2014, her statements to officers on that day will be suppressed. But, statements made by Defendant Aker on September 10, 2014 will not be suppressed because she was no longer in custody. Further, the non-testimonial evidence obtained during the search of Defendants' home on September 3, 2014 will not be suppressed because both Defendants offered voluntary consent for the search. Finally, the evidence obtained during searches of the Defendants' [*2] home and car on September 10, 2014, September 15, 2015, and September 25, 2015 will not be suppressed because the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is inapplicable. Thus, Defendant Aker's Motions to Suppress will be granted in part and denied in part, and Defendant Valentine's Motion to Suppress will be denied in its entirety. I. Background A