Anderson v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 85 688 S.E.second 605 January fifteen, 2010
Anderson was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Code § eighteen.2-308.2. Although a law enforcement officer was chasing him, he threw a silverish, grayish item, hitting a tree and landing about five or 6 feet absent.
Thereafter, as the officer was handcuffing Anderson, the officer saw that the item was a revolver and questioned Andeerson if it was loaded. He answered certainly. Following getting that Anderson was a convicted felon, the officer arrested defendant and suggested him of his Miranda legal rights. Anderson subsequently filed a movement to suppress the statements he produced about the gun. At the suppression hearing, Anderson argued that his first statement about the gun was attained in violation of the Fifth Amendment since he was “in custody” and interrogated without first remaining suggested of his Miranda legal rights.
The failure to give Miranda warnings prior to custodial interrogation violates an individual’s constitutional legal rights beneath the Fifth Amendment as a result, statements attained by regulation enforcement officers in violation of the Miranda rule usually will be subject to exclusion for most evidence purposes in a criminal trial.
A person narrow exception to the Miranda rule, however, is the public safety exception. The require for responses to inquiries in a problem posing a menace to the public safety outweighs the require for the prophylactic rule preserving the Fifth Amendment’s privilege versus self-incrimination.
The Courtroom concluded that the failure to administer Miranda legal rights in a problem coming within public safety exception did not taint Defendant’s subsequent statements right after he was suggested of his Miranda legal rights.