I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING APPELLANT OLSON'S ANSWER TO THE BOOKING OFFICER, THAT HE WAS UNEMPLOYED, BECAUSE THE QUESTION POSED TO APPELLANT WHILE HE WAS BEING PROCESSED INTO JAIL, WAS CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION AND HAD NO LEGITIMATE ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSE; EXCEEDING THE SCOPE OF MIRANDA’S BOOKING EXCEPTION, EVIDENT BY THE FACT OFFICER DOLAN USED APPELLANT’S ANSWER TO BOOK MR. OLSON’S CASH INTO EVIDENCE RATHER THAN PROPERTY. Admission of Mr. Olson's answer to the booking officer, that he was unemployed, is unconstitutional and falls outside Miranda’s booking exception. It has been well established that Miranda warnings are for the protection of individual’s constitutional rights against self-incrimination and are “available …show more content…
Reasoning “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.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980). When this test is used it opens the door to objective determination to a subjective intent. Alas, this “should have have known” test would would make all questions asked while in custody fall in the exemption, regardless if booking or not. Alford v. State, 358 S.W.3d 647, 660 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). “What would be the purpose of asking whether a question is a booking question if, regardless of the answer, admissibility of the response ultimately turns on whether the question was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response? This is an absurd reading of Muniz”. …show more content…
1 RT. ¶¶15-24. However, difference emerge, Alfrod, asked a question pretending to property of the inmate in question and that in was procedure to specifically ask, “does this belong to you”. The Court reasoned, that this was an, “objectively, reasonably related to a legitimate administrative” concern because the Officer needs to know how and where to properly store the inmates’ property. Unlikely here, where Officer Dolan stated, that there was no reason to ask the employment question. 1 RT. ¶¶23-27. Questions are asked for security purposes, in order to not house rival gangs and health reason; none of which applied to the Appellant Mr. Olson. 1 RT. ¶¶29. Nonetheless if applying the legitimate administrative test, the question that Officer Dolan asked fails, for three reasons. (1) Employment is not one of the questions stated by Muniz; to show what are (2) questions reasonably related to the police's administrative concerns, in order to complete booking and pretrial services; and (3) it would fail insofar as Officer Dolan, himself, said there was no purpose to know someone’s