If a plaintiff makes a statement at a police station that was subsequently suppressed as a result of her statements made in the car, what are the consequences of the suppression of the second statement?
The following excerpt is from USA v. Orso, 234 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 2000):
3. If, on the other hand, the first statement does not have a coercive impact, the subsequent statement should be suppressed only if it was not voluntarily given. See United States v. Wauneka , 842 F.2d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 1988). Orso does not contend that her statement at the station was involuntarily given, except insofar as she claims that it was tainted by her statements made in the car.
3. If, on the other hand, the first statement does not have a coercive impact, the subsequent statement should be suppressed only if it was not voluntarily given. See United States v. Wauneka , 842 F.2d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 1988). Orso does not contend that her statement at the station was involuntarily given, except insofar as she claims that it was tainted by her statements made in the car.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
