This is my first ever case briefing pls help! is this right? INTRODUCTION
The statements that Lee Crody made during the car ride with Officer Bird are not admissible because the defendant was not informed of his Miranda Rights during the conversation. This was a custodial conversation as Croddy was in a situation where he was cut off from the outside world and unable to be with his lawyer. In the car, Bird called Lee out in a hostile way that intimidated him into answering his questions. As Officer Bird did not use these procedural safeguards, Croddy’s statement should not be included.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Lee Croddy is a popular influencer who often spread conspiracy theories. After learning information about a topic he was working on for a video, Lee told one of his fans to get the info Remy broke in and was charged with burglary. As Remy was staying with Croddy at the time, when Remy was arrested, Officer Bird asked Lee to come down to the station to answer some questions. Bird offered to give him a ride and Lee accepted. When Lee Croddy was in the car with Officer Bird, Bird started a conversation with Lee. He called Lee out as being an “anarchist.” and never informed Lee of his Miranda Rights, violating the 5th amendment

THE CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION VIOLATED THE 5TH AMENDMENT AS THE OFFICER NEVER INFORMED THE DEFENDANT OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS

The Miranda rights state that an officer must inform a witness of the right to remain silent and not answer their questions until a lawyer is present preceding any further questions as any statements will be inadmissible by the 5th amendment. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) The officer did not use these procedural safeguards, ignoring this right of Croddy. In the car ride with Officer Bird, Croddy could not leave the car and was deprived of movement or contact with his lawyer. When the officer began calling Lee out, a hostile environment was created in which Lee’s answers constituted a custodial interrogation without procedural safeguards.
People v. Boyer, 768 P.2d 610 (1989)

LEES STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT BE ADMISSABLE

CRODDY BEING QUESTIONED IN AN UNMARKED VEHICLE NOT KNOWING HE WAS IN CUSTODY TRANSGRESSED THESE RIGHTS

When Croddy stepped into the car, he was unaware that he was in custody as he was in an unmarked police car with no bars or other description that could let Croddy know other than a police radio. At this time Lee did not know that he was being interrogated, as he was never informed of his Miranda rights. Stansbury v. California 511 U. S 318 (1994)
The fifth amendment states that “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself nor to be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law.” Lee answering these questions in such a custodial investigation without being informed of his rights is self-incriminating and inadmissible under the U. S Constitution.

AS THE CONVERSATION IN THE CAR IS NOT CASUAL, IT IS NOT ADMISSABLE

The prosecution will argue that this is a casual conversation and that is admissible similar to People v. Andreasen Cal. Rptr. 3d 641 (2013). However, unlike People v. Andereaden, speculation should not be made that Croddy knew he was in interrogation as a single radio is not enough information to determine whether he knew at the time. This could hardly be considered a casual conversation, as Officer Bird continuously badgered Croddy about being an “anarchist.” Croddy’s Miranda Rights at this time did need to be read has it was unclear to Croddy that this information was to be used to self-incriminate violating once more the 5th amendment.

CONCLUSION

The defendant requests that this conversation be excluded due to the evidence stated above as it violated his Miranda and 5th amendment rights.