1
The analysis begins with Rob's first statement, "Yes, it was me," made in the restaurant. Rob will argue this statement is inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment based on Miranda v. Arizona. He was clearly subjected to a custodial interrogation without the requisite warnings. Officer Otto, uniformed and armed, ordered Rob not to move and to keep his hands visible. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, establishing custody. Officer Otto's direct question about whether Rob was the robber constituted interrogation, as it was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Since Rob was subjected to custodial interrogation without being advised of his rights to remain silent and to counsel, his confession must be suppressed as a violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. While the prosecution might suggest this was merely an investigative detention or invoke the public safety exception, the level of restraint indicates custody, and the question asked pertained directly to guilt rather than an immediate safety threat like the gun's specific location, making these counterarguments weak. Therefore, this initial confession is likely inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief.
2
Next, we consider Rob's statement at the police station revealing the location of the stolen money. This statement occurred two hours after the initial encounter, following proper Miranda warnings and an affirmative waiver by Rob. Rob will argue this statement should also be suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree," tainted by the initial Miranda violation. He might contend that the unwarned confession psychologically compelled the later one, or that the police employed an improper "question first, warn later" tactic.
However, courts generally permits the admission of a statement obtained after proper Miranda warnings and waiver, even if preceded by an unwarned but voluntary statement. Here, there is no indication Rob's initial statement was coerced. Furthermore, the significant time lapse (two hours), the change in location (from restaurant to police station), and the formal administration of Miranda rights serve to attenuate the connection between the initial violation and the subsequent, warned confession. This break in the stream of events distinguishes the situation from the deliberate, continuous interrogation strategy. Thus, Rob's voluntary waiver after receiving proper warnings likely renders his statement about the money admissible.
3
Regarding the gun found in the briefcase, Rob will challenge its admissibility under both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Under the Fourth Amendment, he will argue Officer Otto conducted a warrantless search of the briefcase, in which Rob had a reasonable expectation of privacy. He will contend that no warrant exception applied. A search incident to lawful arrest (SILA) might be questionable if the search preceded the formal arrest, or if the briefcase was deemed outside Rob's immediate control once Officer Otto confronted him. Rob might also argue the gun is suppressible as physical fruit derived from the unwarned statement under the Fifth Amendment. The prosecution, however, has compelling counterarguments. The Miranda rule does not require suppression of physical evidence discovered due to a voluntary but unwarned statement. Furthermore, under the Fourth Amendment, the prosecution can argue the gun would inevitably have been discovered through lawful means. This doctrine provides a strong basis for admitting the gun, irrespective of the timing or exact justification for the search at the restaurant.
4
Finally, the admissibility of the stolen money seized from Rob's apartment depends largely on the admissibility of his second statement. Rob will argue that if his statement revealing the money's location is suppressed, then the search warrant based on that statement lacks probable cause, rendering the search unlawful and the money inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. However, as previously discussed, Rob's second statement made at the station after a valid Miranda waiver is likely admissible. Because this statement lawfully provided the probable cause presented in the affidavit, the resulting search warrant was valid. The officers' search of Rob's apartment was conducted pursuant to this valid warrant, conforming to Fourth Amendment requirements. Therefore, the stolen money seized during this lawful search is almost certainly admissible. The connection to the initial unwarned statement is sufficiently attenuated by the subsequent valid waiver and the intervening judicial authorization of the warrant.
In conclusion, while Rob is likely to succeed in suppressing his initial statement "Yes, it was me" due to a Miranda violation, his subsequent statement about the money, the gun found in the briefcase, and the stolen money recovered from his apartment are all likely to be deemed admissible against him at trial.
(765 words)