The 4th and 5th Amendment rights are applicable in the situation discussed in this paper. Miranda rights are another name for these protections. Before he starts the interrogation, a police officer or detective who intends to question a suspect must give the suspect his Miranda rights. In our instance, the detective informed the suspect, who elected to waive his rights, of the Miranda warnings. Any self-incriminating information that the defendant provides in these circumstances will be used against him in a court of law. (Anderson & Gardner, 2015). The right to remain silent: The detective must inform the suspect that he can choose not speak until his attorney arrives. The suspect must be told that in case he chooses to speak, then his information will be used against him in court.
• The right to an attorney: A suspect has a right to seek an attorney who will represent him on the case. If the suspect cannot afford a private or personal attorney, then the police must appoint an attorney to represent him.
The detective must confirm with the suspect if he understood the information read to him or if he needs any further clarification. Once he understands his rights, the detective can now go ahead and asks the suspect if he wishes to speak. If he refuses to speak, the detective cannot continue with the interrogation. The court will use only information obtained from the suspect after giving an affirmative answer that he wishes to waive his rights. Silence is not regarded as an affirmation to waive the Miranda rights (Anderson & Gardner, 2015).
Edwards rule invokes that if a suspect is being interrogated and requests an attorney, a police officer or detective may not interrogate the patient anymore until his counsel is present. Furthermore, the police should not initiate any more discussions with the suspect on the case unless he (suspect) voluntarily chooses to waive his right to have a lawyer present. In our case, the suspect requested Officer Jones for a lawyer. As required by law, the police were supposed to get a lawyer to represent the suspect before initiating any further discussions. As the suspect is taken to jail and booked, he meets a detective who wishes to interrogate him. The only question we need to answer in this case is, “has the suspect’s request for a lawyer been honored?’ If yes, then the detective can proceed to interrogate the suspect. In our case, it is evident that the detective interrogated the suspect without honoring his initial request of getting a lawyer. The detective has disobeyed the Edwards Rule that forbids him from initiating further discussions on the case in the absence of an attorney. Besides, the suspect did not voluntarily decide to waive his right to counsel. According to Edward’s rule, any information collected from a suspect in the absence of a lawyer infringes his rights and should not be used legally in the court of law (Carmen, 2013).
Conclusion
In my opinion, the confession of the suspect should be used in a court of law because it was obtained illegally. The court is mandated to use information that has been acquired legally from the suspect. I choose the word illegally because the detective infringed the right of the suspect to counsel. If the suspect did not initiate a discussion with the detective, it is only fair that the court dismisses his confession as required by the Edwards rule (Carmen, 2013).
References
Anderson, T. M., & Gardner, T. J. (2015). Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases. Cengage Learning.
Carmen, R. V. (2013). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice. Cengage Learning.
