Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements


Terminology defined, “admissions” and “confessions.”


Relative importance of confession evidence as compared with the other two categories of proof.
Fourth Amendment test of admissibility of suspects’ statements, and the key to analysis of “fruits” issues.
 Fifth Amendment rules for both state and federal officers.
 Two varieties of Sixth Amendment rules affecting admissibility.

Two varieties of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rules governing involuntary statements.

Civil liability for coercive interrogations.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements

Distinguishing “Admissions” and
“Confessions”

Any statement of the suspect that tends to establish any portions of the facts required to prove guilt or to negate any potential defense is an “admission.”


Any statement that tends to connect a suspect to a crime may be an admission, even if it does not admit any element.
A “confession,” by contrast, is an admission to every fact necessary to establish guilt.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements
 Importance of Confession Evidence
 Of the three categories of evidence—confessions, eyewitness testimony and physical evidence—the form of evidence that is most “probative” (tends to prove) is confession evidence.
 Physical evidence is circumstantial in nature.
 Because confession evidence is the most valuable evidence an investigator can collect, it is important that investigators know the constitutional rules regarding admissibility of suspect’s statements, and remain abreast of changes and developments throughout their law enforcement careers.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements
 Six Tests of Admissibility
 Confession admissibility issues can arise under four different provisions of the Constitution—the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments. These four provisions protect a total of six different kinds of interests affecting confession admissibility, at different phases of a criminal investigation and prosecution.
 Fourth Amendment: Just as drugs, guns, stolen property and other physical evidence may be suppressed under the Fourth
Amendment exclusionary rule, so may confession evidence that results from unreasonable detention, arrest, entry or other search or seizure.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements
 Six Tests of Admissibility (Continued)
 Fourth Amendment (Continued)
 Fruit of Unconstitutional Detention: Confession evidence obtained during an unlawful detention may be suppressed on
Fourth amendment grounds.
 Fruit of Unconstitutional Arrest: Confession evidence that results from an unlawful arrest is subject to exclusion on
Fourth amendment grounds, notwithstanding Miranda warnings and waiver.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements
 Six Tests of Admissibility (Continued)
 Fruit of De Facto Arrest: Confession evidence that results from an unlawful de facto arrest is subject to exclusion on Fourth amendment grounds, notwithstanding Miranda warnings and waiver.
 Fruit of Unconstitutional Entry: Confession evidence that results from an unlawful entry is subject to exclusion on Fourth amendment grounds.
 Bad Entry, Good Arrest: If an entry to arrest is found to be unlawful, the Fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to statements obtained outside the home, provided the arrest was based on PC that pre-existed the unlawful entry.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements
 Six Tests of Admissibility (Continued)
 Attenuation: Confession evidence obtained after a Fourth amendment violation need not be suppressed if intervening acts have attenuated the taint from the error.
 Impeachment: Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth amendment and ordered suppressed in a prosecution case-inchief is admissible to impeach the defendant’s contrary testimony, but not to impeach other defense witnesses.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements
 Six Tests of Admissibility (Continued)
 Fifth Amendment
 Confession evidence is inadmissible under the Fifth amendment if it was compelled by police interrogators.
 Statements obtained by custodial interrogation are presumed compelled unless preceded by Miranda warning and waiver.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements
 Six Tests of Admissibility (Continued)
 Sixth Amendment
 The Sixth Amendment contains several provisions related to insuring fair criminal trials, including the right of the accused to a speedy public trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses, the right to subpoena witnesses, and the right to the assistance of a defense attorney.
 Confession evidence may be inadmissible under the Sixth amendment right to counsel or right to confront adverse witnesses.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements
 Six Tests of Admissibility (Continued)
 Fourteenth Amendment
 The Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, which applies only to state officers and cases, controls admissibility of statements claimed to have been coerced by actual, not just presumptive, pressures from officials.
 Confession evidence is inadmissible under the Fifth or
Fourteenth amendments if it was actually coerced by police abuse, threats or promises.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements

 Some constitutional rights impose limits on governmental power and define individual rights that exist outside of the judicial process.
 Unconstitutional Acquisition: As relates to confession evidence, the violation of two different constitutional provisions may invoke this deterrent kind of exclusionary rule.
• Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures protects people outside of the judicial process.
• Substantive Due Process: Substantive due process protects people outside of the judicial process against outrageous government conduct; procedural due process insures the fairness of judicial or other official procedures used to deprive a person of life, liberty or property.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements
 Two Forms of Exclusionary Rules
(Continued)
 Unconstitutional Use: Three different constitutional amendments may require suppression of confession evidence under this prophylactic (“preventive”) kind of exclusionary rule.

Fifth Amendment: Confession evidence obtained without compliance with Miranda procedures (when applicable) is not suppressed because it was unconstitutionally acquired, but because its use at trial would violate the Fifth amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements
 Two Forms of Exclusionary Rules
(Continued)
 Unconstitutional Use (Continued)

Sixth Amendment: Confession evidence resulting from questioning a suspect without his attorney after his Sixth amendment right to counsel has attached and been asserted, as well as confession evidence obtained from one defendant that implicates his codefendant in a joint trial, is not suppressed because it was unconstitutionally acquired, but because its use at trial would violate the Sixth amendment.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements
 Two Forms of Exclusionary Rules
(Continued)
 Unconstitutional Use (Continued)

Procedural Due Process: Confession evidence resulting from threats or promises that do not shock the conscience but nevertheless render a statement involuntary is not suppressed because it was unconstitutionally acquired, but because its use at trial would violate Fifth or Fourteenth amendment procedural due process.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Admissibility of Suspect’s
Statements
 Civil Liability for Interrogation
 Since civil liability requires a showing of the violation of a person’s constitutional rights, it cannot be predicated on police conduct that merely renders confession evidence inadmissible in court under Miranda, the Sixth amendment, or procedural due process, but must be based on alleged violations of the Fourth amendment or substantive due process.
Investigative Constitutional Law