In Carter v. State, after being arrested for possession of a controlled substance, appellant made incriminating statements in response to the arresting officer’s questioning in the police car on the way to the station. Appellant filed a motion to suppress, alleging that the statements were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.
Motion to Suppress Confession
The judge admitted the post-Miranda statements to the arresting officer even though the officer had asked three questions before reading Appellant his Miranda rights. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial judge improperly admitted Appellant’s statements because they were elicited during an illegal two-step interrogation.
The Court of Criminal appeals reversed holding that the record and reasonable inferences from that record support a finding of voluntariness. This case involves the distinction between “inadvertent” pre-Miranda questioning and “deliberate” two-step questioning to avoid Miranda protections.