Your Honor, in this case, there is no need for the court to suppress the admission of the defendant’s statements. The defendant was stopped because the officer assumed the probability she was driving

Your Honor, in this case, there is no need for the court to suppress the admission of the defendant’s statements. The defendant was stopped because the officer assumed the probability she was driving under the influence. The defendant falsely believed that the police officers could not question her without first providing her, her Miranda rights. She was suspected of drunk driving, which the officer deemed her a possibility that she could be a danger to public safety. Also, the fact that a person was not properly Mirandized does not necessarily result in the suppression of evidence obtained based on statement made to police. Upon, being stopped the defendant was searched and questioned. The statements also should not be suppressed because the officers just inquired about the items they found on her body and she willingly gave reasoning for why she had possession of them. If you suppress her statements, she will still have to answer in court as to how she got them, who Judy O’Heary was to her, and why would she need 350 pills, as well as other questions. So, either way, we sill still get the same answers that she gave the officers.

Let’s take a look atVignera v. New Yorkcompared to this case. Vignera was taken to multiple police stations. Confessing at the second and being detained at the third. This can be mentally draining on any person. Let’s take a look atWestover v. United States

respond to this discussion in 100 words