Question

Case 9.3
Police investigate an arson of a commercial structure. The day after the fire is extinguished, police investigators return to the property and retrieve evidence from the burned building. Police contact the security company that monitored the crime scene and obtained alarm system records that demonstrate that the system was shut down via the internal key pad just prior to the fire. Police also obtain surveillance videos from other commercial businesses adjacent to the crime scene. Through their investigation the owner of the building is identified as a prime suspect.
Police ask the building owner to come down to headquarters to follow up on any potential suspects he may have. Once at police headquarters, the building owner is interviewed by detectives regarding the fire. What was a friendly discussion suddenly turns adversarial with the detectives accusing him of starting the fire to collect insurance. They both tell him to think about what he wants to say about the crime and leave him alone in a locked interview room. While in the interview room the building owner texts an accomplice to check if he properly disposed of incriminating evidence. The investigators come in and inform the defendant that no cell phones are allowed in the interview room. They take the cell phone out of the room and view the texts on the phone. The building owner ultimately confesses to the arson and is charged. Subsequent to the confession police obtain a search warrant for the cell phone texts and records.

At trial the defense moves to suppress the evidence removed from crime scene by investigators the day after the fire, because they failed to get a search warrant or consent. Under which rule would the defense make this motion?
a. Miranda
b. affirmative defense
c. fruit of the poisonous tree
d. inevitable discovery

Answer

This answer is hidden. It contains 75 characters.