The case of Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196 (1927) underscores the significance of reasonable particularity of the details of an item included in a search warrant for it to meet the Fourth Amendment requirements. Here, it was stated that “the requirement that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another”. Hence, using this standard, the car may be described as being a four-wheeled car painted blue in color with clear or transparent window panes.
With regards to a suspect’s Miranda rights, custodial interrogations differ from non-custodial ones in that under custodial interrogation, one must be read their Miranda right should the police wish to question them and rely on the answers from the suspect against them as evidence in a court of law. On the other hand, for non-custodial interrogation that does not take place in police custody but at the scene of the crime, say the suspect’s house, the police need not necessarily read out for the suspect his or her Miranda rights. This is mainly because, in the latter case, the accused suspect is not under police arrest yet hence they are not entitled to any Miranda warnings.
Under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, a police officer has a legal ‘right to arrest’ a suspect hen and only when the police officer has a probable cause which is a strong and justifiable suspicion that the suspect has committed or is about to commit an offence (Siegel & Worrall, 2015). This was also held in Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003). The police officer however need not be absolutely certain of this fact so long as any reasonable person in their position would conclude that the suspect committed or was planning to commit a crime under the circumstances prevailing at the material time. Moreover, in some cases, the police have to obtain an arrest warrant from a judge before making an arrest, in which case they have to adduce evidence of probable cause.
A false confession involves an admission of guilt by a suspect or accused person for an offence that they in fact never committed in the first place. The admission may be due to coercion, torture, or undue influence from the prosecution or police. According to Kassin (2008), false confessions may be categorized as compliant, voluntary and internalized false confessions. Internalized false confessions involve a genuine belief by the suspect or accused that they indeed committed the crime and this is usually the case where the interrogators apply suggestive interrogation strategies to make them believe this (Meissner, Redlich, Bhatt & Brandon, 2012). Voluntary false confessions on the other hand are those that the suspect freely gives in lieu of coercion or torture from the police, may be for the accused’s own good or that of their loved ones. Lastly, compliant false confessions are those that an accused person gives out of expectations of a reward that they have been promised if they do so or in order to escape punishment. The major implication of these false confessions on the criminal justice system is that they perpetuate injustice whereby innocent people are tried, humiliated and convicted for offences they never committed (Garrett, 2011). They also undermine the legitimacy of the system and those in it like law enforcement police officers and prosecutors besides leading to miscarriage of justice and unjust deprivation of individual liberties (Leo & Ofshe, 1998).
An Appeal to the Suspect’s Self-Interest
I consider this outcome based tactic to be important given that more often than not, people commit crimes to satisfy their own selfish vested interests. Hence I believe that by capitalizing on this interest during an interrogation, and then it is easier to get un-coerced confession to a crime.
Undermining the Suspect’s Confidence in their Denials
Through this interrogation technique, it is possible to secure conviction based on free confessions since this tactic makes the suspect see the weaknesses in their oral evidence.
References
Garrett, B. L. (2011). Conbvicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press.
Kassin, M. S. (2008). False confession: Causes, consequences and implication for reform. Journal of Current Directive in Psychological Scene, 7(4), 249-255. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from www.williams.edu//Kassin%20(2008)%20-%20APS%..
Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (1998, Winter). Consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscaaraige of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88(2), 429-496.
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. (2012). Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions. Campbell Systematic Reviews Journal, 13, 6-36.
Siegel, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2015). Introduction to crminal justice. New York: Cengage Learning.
