Question: Muniz was arrested on a charge of driving under the

Muniz was arrested on a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was taken to a booking center, where he was asked several questions by a police officer without first being given the Miranda warnings. Videotape (which included an audio portion) was used to record the questions and Muniz's answers. The officer asked Muniz his name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and current age. Muniz stumbled over answers to two of these questions. The officer then asked Muniz the date of his sixth birthday, but Muniz did not give the correct date. At a later point, Muniz was read the Miranda warnings for the first time. He was later convicted of the charged offense, with the trial court denying his motion to exclude the videotape (both video and audio portions) from evidence. Assume that the video portion of the tape violated neither the Fifth Amendment nor Miranda. Should all or any part of the audio portion of the tape (which contained Muniz's stumbling responses to two questions plus his incorrect answer to the sixth birthday date question) have been excluded as a violation of either the Fifth Amendment or Miranda?

View Solution:

Sale on SolutionInn
  • CreatedJuly 16, 2014
  • Files Included
Post your question