Motion to Suppress Statements Allowed

November, 2021

Our client was alleged to have made statements after his arrest while he was in the back of the police car. We argued that his statements were not in compliance with Miranda. Miranda warnings are required when a suspect is both in custody and subject to state interrogation. See Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966).

We requested an evidentiary hearing to argue the noncompliance with Miranda. The police and prosecution tried to show there was no “interrogation” done by the police, and, therefore, Miranda would not apply. Miranda Warnings are required only when a person is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent See Rhode Island v Innis 446 US 291, 300-301 (1980).

We argued that what the police were saying to our client was the functional equivalent of express questioning. Functional equivalent includes any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. See Commonwealth v Torres 424 Mass 792 (1997).

As a result of our arguments, the judge decided to allow our Motions to Suppress Statements. Therefore, the statements our client allegedly made when in the back of the police car, were not admissible against them.

Practice area(s): Criminal Defense
Motion to Suppress Statements Allowed
David Ellison

Attorney David Ellison is the Founding Attorney of Ellison Law LLC.

Motion to Suppress Statements Allowed
Allyson Quay

Attorney Allyson Quay is an Associate Attorney for Ellison Law LLC.

Motion to Suppress Statements Allowed
Laurie Ellison

Laurie Ellison is the Operations Manager for Ellison Law LLC. She is a Certified Public Accountant.

Contact Us Today

Fields marked with an “*” are required