The defense respectfully requests that Cameron Awbery´s statement ¨everything under that roof is mine¨ be excluded from evidence on the basis that he involuntarily issued it while he was in custody and being interrogated by Officer West.
On the day in question, Mr. Awbery approached Officer West outside of his restaurant to ask how Officer West enjoyed his food. Officer West then accused Mr. Awbery of treating his employees poorly, prompting a verbal altercation between the two. Officer West then told Mr. Awbery to “wait here” while he checked his I.D. This is when Mr. Awbery was first in custody. Thompson vs Keohane holds that a suspect is in custody if the circumstances surrounding a suspect are such that a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the interrogation and leave. Mr. Awbery would not have felt free to leave, because, as any decent…show more content… Awbery to the police station. However, a more detailed description of the suspect came in, which Mr. Awbery did not match. Officer West then said, “Your lucky day. But I still think you’re abusive to your cook.” These comments elicited Mr. Awbery’s incriminating response, and qualify as interrogation. Under Rhode Island vs Innis, interrogation is words or actions that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. Anyone in Mr. Awbery’s position would have felt obligated to respond to such a direct accusation. Regardless of Officer West’s intentions, or whether his comments were even questions, his comments fulfill the only requirement for them to be considered interrogation. Officer West had already accused Mr. Awbery of mistreating his employees once, and as I noted before, it resulted in a verbal altercation between the two. It’s simply impossible that Officer West did not know it was reasonably likely that his comments would elicit an incriminating response from Mr.
