Your task is to use the techniques from this course and evaluate the case presented. It should be a concise analysis and respond to the four questions. You should justify each answer with material from reliable scholarly sources or case law.

Scenario:

First, responding officers are dispatched to a residential structure fire. Upon arrival, officers observed that the structure is fully involved. They observe a male individual wandering outside the residence near the front door. They are told there are other victims inside. The officers enter the front alcove of the burning building and find a female victim laying inside the door and attempt to rescue her.

As the officers are attempting to pull the victim from the burning building, the male suspect follows them and gets in the way. The officers shove him aside and pull the victim from the front door. Within feet of the front door, the male subject gain gets in the way, and they shove him out of the way again.

Fire and emergency medical services personnel take over the treatment of this victim. Two other victims are also rescued from the rear of the structure. All three of the victims are transported to the hospital for treatment of their injuries. The two officers who rescued the first victim were transported to the hospital for treatment of smoke inhalation. Before leaving they instruct the remaining officers to detain the male subject they first encountered for obstructing their aid to the victim. The male subject is handcuffed and placed in the rear of a patrol vehicle.

Fire department arson investigators (who are sworn police officers) respond. They determine that the fire started on a couch located in the garage of the residence. The arson investigators question the subject who asked to go to the hospital to check on the first victim (rescued by the officers). His request is refused and he is detained for questioning. The arson investigators question the subject without reading his Miranda warnings. He admits that he was sitting on the couch where the fire started and had been drinking. He was smoking on the couch with the victim from the front of the house. At one point he noted a stray thread from the couch and distractedly burned the thread down using his cigarette. He admitted at one point that the thread briefly exhibited smoke, but he quickly patted it down. Everyone went to bed, however, three hours later he was awakened by a smoke alarm. The room he was in was filled with smoke. He woke the original female victim and exited the house. She did not follow. The officers arrived at this time.

A decision was initially made not to charge the subject and he was driven home. While en route to his home it is learned that he has an outstanding parole revocation warrant and he is placed under arrest and transported to jail. Within a few hours of being taken to jail complained of shortness of breath, and is transported to the hospital where he is treated and released. After several days his condition worsens and he is again transported to the hospital where it is learned he has developed pneumonia from smoke inhalation. He remains at the hospital for several days and is released back to jail. Once at the jail investigators decide to question him. He is read his rights to counsel and waives counsel. He also agrees to a polygraph exam. He is transported to a polygraph and conducts an examination, which is determined to be "inconclusive". He is then transported back to the police department where he is questioned for several hours. He is told that he has "failed" the polygraph exam. At one point during the extensive questioning he is confronted by the investigator and asked if he set the fire intentionally because he was mad at one of the victims, and he says yes, but immediately changes that answer to no, claiming he was tired and misheard the question initially.

Arson investigators determined subsequently that the fire started from the couch. The first victim dies five weeks later after being released from the hospital. The other two victims receive burns and are released from the hospital after a few days. Please respond to the following questions and support your responses.

Answer the following questions in detailed paragraphs.

1. Was the detention of the subject legal? Why or why not?

2. What, if any, charges do you think should be filed?

( use the link for the Texas Penal Code:https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/ )

3. Was the subject under arrest at the time of questioning, or merely being detained under reasonable suspicion?

4. Which, if any, statements are admissible? Why?