Discussion Post #8 Wk-14
In my opinion, the scenario describe above involves a potential violation of Bart's Fifth
Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Bart was arrested, advised of his Miranda rights,
and subsequently requested to speak with a lawyer. When a suspect invokes the right to an
attorney, law enforcement is generally required to cease any further questioning until the
suspect has had an opportunity to consult with counsel.
In this case, even though the officers did not directly question Bart during the car ride, they
engaged in a conversation that ultimately led to Bart providing information about the location
of the hunting knife. The officer's statement about the potential harm to children could be seen
as a subtle form of coercion, suggesting potential consequences for not revealing the knife's
location. This could be interpreted as an attempt to elicit incriminating information from Bart,
even though it was done indirectly.
The key question would be whether Bart's statement about the knife's location was voluntary or
if it was a result of the officers' comments, which might be considered a violation of Bart's Fifth
Amendment rights. Courts may scrutinize the circumstances surrounding the statement to
determine if Bart felt compelled to speak due to the implied consequences mentioned by the
officers.
It's worth noting that the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to be
witnesses against themselves, and any evidence obtained in violation of this right may be
subject to suppression in court. If Bart's attorney can argue that the officers' comments were a
form of coercion, it might lead to the exclusion of the information about the knife's location as
evidence.
