Can Motion to Suppress Evidencd Stand?

[Doe]

What is the name of your state? Illinois :WARNING: THIS IS EXTREMELY LONG AND CONFUSING

Ok I guess ill start from the top. One evening person A and person B were at the mall. Person A drove and was ready to go so he and person B left the mall. Person A told person B, that he was going to a store where his friend worked(person C). When Person A got to the store where person C worked, he told person B to stay in the car and that he would be right back. Person B sat in the passenger seat while Person A went into the store. Person A then met up wit a Person D and They entered the store. Person A and D entered the store where Person C is working. Person A and D rob the store person C manages (who allowed the robbery) of 2 electronic items and 1000 dollars cash. Person A and D, then leave the store and return to Person A's car. Person A opens the backdoor to his car, places the stolen items in the backseat and gets into the Driver side of the vehicle. Person D opens the Backdoor of Person A's car and gets inside. Person A tells Person B to drive his car. Person B gets out the car and switches positions with Person A. Person A thinks nothing of it and Drives person A and D to person A's house. Persons A,B and D enter person As home with the stolen items. Persons A and D tell person B that they have just robbed the store. They tell person B to not tell and gave person B 200 dollars. Person B agreed. The police held person C and questioned him into confusing the plot. Person A and D were both arrested and were found with the stole items. Person A and D both lived within one mile of the police departments jurisdiction. The cops then come to Person Bs home. The cops knock on person Bs door and ask to speak with him for one moment. Person B says ok but doesnt have his key so he goes to his garage to see wat the police want. He opens his garage, the police enter his garage(which is connected to his house) tells him he has to come with them, and physically puts him in handcuffs and puts him into a cop car against his will and without reading him anything. Just staying that he had to come with them. Person B was out of the cops jurisdiction and was taken to the police department. Person B is then taken to a interrigation room and question. Person B believes he is arrested and answers questions. Afterwords the officers officially arrest person B. Three days later persons A,B,C and D all went to court. Person A,C and D had a bail bond of 25,000, while person B 10,000. Everyone was bailed out. Person B gets this own attorney, while Persons A,C and D all decide to have one attorney defend them all. After weeks of continuations, Person B's attorney files a motion to suppress the evidence of the signed statement(The only evidence against person B, unlike the others.) The ground of the motions of suppressed evidence again person B where 1. The officers were out of jurisdiction, 2. The officers physically arrested person B without reading him his rights, and 3. The officers didnt have a ''real probable cause'' besides hearsay and didnt have an arrest warrent. Persons A,C and D's attorney just try for a reduced charge. Is there a chance any of the motions will stand? Should person B take it to trial and try his case?What is the name of your state?

[stephenk]

What are you charged with?

Based on your facts, the motion to supress would be denied.

[Doe]

person A,B,C and D were all charged with robbery. This is pretrial, and person B wants to take his chances in trial but person A,C and D dont want to because they were told by theyre attorney if they plead guility they will be put on long probation and in this state this charge is probational.

[tranquility]

The ground of the motions of suppressed evidence again person B where 1. The officers were out of jurisdiction, 2. The officers physically arrested person B without reading him his rights, and 3. The officers didnt have a ''real probable cause'' besides hearsay and didnt have an arrest warrent. Persons A,C and D's attorney just try for a reduced charge. Is there a chance any of the motions will stand? Should person B take it to trial and try his case?

I don't think you understand the motion's grounds. They may be reasons why the motion is going to be tried, but they are not grounds to exclude.

I don't see any reason the officer's being out of their jurisdiction will prevent anything from being admitted for violating the 4th amendment.

The person was either arrested or gave consent to be transported to the station. If he gave consent, they would not have to read B his rights to introduce the statement. If he was arrested, they would have to read B his rights before questioning in order to use his statement against him in a court of law. In that case they would need to read the rights before questioning, not right after taking him in. Sometimes the police will talk and, after incriminating things are said, then read the rights before recording the statement.

Finally, hearsay? This makes me very suspicious about the competence of your attorney. (Or, whether you have one.) My goodness, heresay is an evidentiary issue. Cops arrest for heresay all the time. Heresay, literally, is an out of court statement offered for it's truth. All cops ever have to go on is "heresay".

Sorry, I don't think the motion will succeed unless all you are trying to suppress is the statement and you did not go to the station with consent or were not read your rights before the statement you want to exclude was made.

[Doe]

The only evidence that cops have against person B is the statement, no other evidence. He is only trying to suppress the evidence and he did not give consent to be taken to the police station, he was told he must go against his own consent. And if im not mistaken, was interviewed before he was given his rights read to him.

[tranquility]

That's the only thing you have from all that you wrote. That there was a custodial interrogation where you were not advised of your rights before making a statement. This is the core of Miranda. Now, prove it.

However, that's not "all" that they have. They at least have the statements of the other suspects.