« on: July 16, 2007, 02:21:25 PM »
Hey guys, just took my exam and...well... you know how it is. All about second guessing yourself. Anyway, here's my question:
In our exam we had a question which had to do with whether the officers statement was a functional equivalent of an interrogation.
In his affidavit he says(and I'm paraphrasing):
The guy said to me, "this is for a traffic violation? phew, I thought it was about the girl I raped!" I said, "huh? I couldn't hear you over the sound of the horns" then he said, "you know, the school teacher." I had no idea what he was talking about, so I put him in the car and took him to the station.
I asked the professor whether the officer actually heard the guy in the first place or whether he legitimately didn't know what he said. He said it was the latter and that he put it all together later.
Because my prof told me that, I went with the answer that it wasn't an interrogation since the officer didn't know what the guy was talking about and his only question was in regards to something he said which the officer didn't hear.
Anyone have any input? I think I'm right, but I'd love to hear your thoughts
PS: No, this is not a take home exam which I'm looking for answers for, so don't worry about ethical violations in posting answers.