Description
You are in charge of a three-man narcotics unit. You are using a nonpolice informant to make a “confidence purchase” of narcotics in a local motel along the beach. (Note: A confidence purchase is when the offender sells a small amount of drugs to an informant or undercover officer so that the informant or undercover officer gains the confidence of the drug trafficker. This is done in hopes of doing a much larger deal at another date with the same drug trafficker, which would lead to a greater offense level of drug sale and a subsequent arrest).
Shortly after the confidence purchase happens, an unidentified Caucasian male enters the same hotel room. Several shots are heard, and when you enter the hotel room, the drug trafficker appears to be mortally wounded and lying on the floor. The rear window of the hotel room is open, and nobody else is in the room.
You go to the drug trafficker and observe the severity of the wounds. The trafficker tells you he knows he is going to die. You ask him if he is the main dealer of the drugs in this case, and he confesses that he is. You ask who the shooter was, and he identifies him as John Smith—a drug dealer who threatened him earlier for selling drugs in Smith’s territory.
The informant tells you that he is sure that John Smith was the shooter, even though he had already left the hotel room when Smith entered it. The drug trafficker was not advised of his rights prior to telling you that he was the local dealer. The trafficker miraculously survives the shooting.
- Discuss what the drug trafficker told you at the scene. Could his statement be used against him?
- Is this a violation of the Exclusionary Rule, or is there an exception in this scenario?
- Is the testimony of the informant that the shooter must be John Smith admissible in court?
- Is there an Exclusionary Rule issue?
