Recent Updates
April 28, 2010
State Must Prove Defendant's Knowledge of Driver's License Suspension
April 13, 2010
Sentencing Commission Votes to Eliminate Recent Criminal History Points
October 15, 2009
Consent to search inside of vehicle does not extend to locked containers
October 14, 2009
Making phone calls to get drugs for personal use not a felony
October 07, 2009
Duval County schools agree to reduce number of students getting arrested
INEVITABLE DISCOVERY RULE AND MIRANDA
December 18, 2008
Topic: Criminal
On February 5, 2007, Lisa Nowak, former NASA astronaut gained international fame when she was arrested after driving from Texas to Florida in order to confront her boyfriend's lover. She was subsequently charged with attempted kidnapping.
At trial, the prosecution attempted to use statements obtained during a custodial interview when the Orlando Police Department first confronted her at the airport. If the state attempts to use statements obtained from the defendant, they must show that she knowingly and intelligently waived her Miranda rights before police questioned her. Additionally, they must demonstrate that the defendant's statements to the police were made voluntarily. The prosecution failed to provide any evidence that Ms. Nowak waived her Miranda rights or voluntarily agreed to speak to police.
Because the statements made by Ms. Nowak were taking in violation of her Miranda rights that illegally obtained evidence should have been rightfully excluded from the prosecutions direct case. Generally, when police locate physical evidence using illegally obtained evidence, that evidence is barred at trial under the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine." An exception exits where the State is ale to demonstrate that it would have discovered the evidence anyway, by legal means. Under this exception, evidence obtained as the result of unconstitutional police procedures may still be admissible if it is shown that the evidence would have been discovered by legal means.
As a result of the illegally obtained statements, the police located additional evidence in Ms. Nowak's car. In order for the State to utilize this evidence, they would have to demonstrate that they would have found the vehicle without using the illegal information and that the police would have probable cause to search the car without relying on Ms. Nowak's statements. The court found that the police would have located the car even if she had not led them to it. Police testified that they would have called her employer to determine what type of car she drove and then contact the hotel where she was registered to stay in Orlando. This should lead the police to the type of car as well as its current location.
Probable cause is a practical, common sense question. It is the probability of criminal activity. The determination of probable cause involves factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. Applying this standard, as long as law enforcement had practical, common sense basis to conclude that Ms. Nowak's car likely contained additional evidence of her alleged criminal conduct; they had probable cause to search the car. The court found that there was significant evidence prior planning from the evidence seized from Ms. Nowak. That evidence pointed to the contention that the plan likely extended beyond the airport parking lot. Given this information, it was common sense that additional evidence would be found in Ms. Nowak's vehicle if police searched it.
This case shows that even if evidence is rightfully excluded because of a Miranda violation, subsequent evidence may still be admitted as long at it would have been inevitably discovered. The full ruling of the court may be found here.
