EVIDENCE OBTAINED: A. Katz 1. Does this person who is trying to exclude evidence have a subjective expectation of privacy as to what the gov’t is trying to search? 2. Are we as reasonable members of society objectively to believe there is a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the world? a. Guests – Overnight guests do have expectation of privacy in hosts home. Short visitors probably not, and business guest most likely not. b. Passenger of car does not have same expectation of privacy as driver/owner. B. Oliver – open fields 1. One cannot make private that which is deemed public. 2. Individuals may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted in open fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home (curtilage)! C. Curtilage 1. Land immediately surrounding and associated the home becomes a direct extension of the home, it is not subject to the Oliver open fields doctrine. 2. Trespass does not negate observation or make activity a search. D. Common Enhancement Devices 1. Is it a common enhancement device? 2. Is the enhancement device used in a common way? a. If no to either question SEARCH b. House is an exception to the rule not reasonable (increased sense of protection as it relates to the home!) E. Garbage 1. Not a search Society will not recognize D’s expectation of privacy w/ regards to garbage that is put outside. 2. Police cannot Rx be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any animal or member of the public.
SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT A. Burden of Persuasion on the Prosecution to show search was reasonable 1. Every search that does not have a search warrant (PC – look at surrounding useable facts) or fits into an exception is per se unreasonable. B. 5 Exceptions 1. Search incident to arrest – Robinson/Chimel a. Rule: Subsequent to a custodial arrest, a cop can do a full search of the entire person and anything associated with him Once under custodial arrest, the arrestee is stripped of his 4 th Amendment expectations of privacy rights. 1. Policy goals: a. Police safety b. Prevent the destruction of evidence (doesn’t have to be related to the arrest)
b. Is it a cite and release or an arrest? 1. If cop only intends to cite and release the suspect, i.e. a traffic ticket, then Robinson/Chimel does not apply. You only lose your 4th Am when under custodial arrest. 2. But, if have Rx suspicion that criminal activity afoot and cops actions were Rx under circumstances then can briefly further the investigation. c. Lunging radius or anything w/i the suspects immediate control. (including locked desk) 1. Belton – the Chimel radius begins at the point the officer decides to make a custodial arrest. (If Rx cop conduct under circumstances to move suspect, then permitted to go back and search area and unzip jackets). d. Cop has a right to monitor movements. e. Functionally contemporaneous to custodial arrest – Chadwick 1. If not, a SW must be obtained b/c the policy reasons for Chimel are no longer present (trunk under exclusive control of police so no longer a concern of destroying evidence). 2. Exigent circumstances will satisfy FC requirement. f. Search incident to booking – Lafayette 1. Upon booking a suspect, the cops have the authority to search the suspect’s bags, car, etc. for inventory purposes. 2. Key: that it is an administrative step. Done in the same way every time, so as to remove cop discretion. Anything that comes to light during the booking process can be used against the suspect. 3. Policy a. Safety for other prisoners b. So police do not steal. 2. Consent a. Burden on prosecutor to show consent. Good police procedure always to ask for consent. And refusal to consent is admissible. b. In order to be valid, it must be voluntary/free and unconstrained choice: 4 factors 1. Age 2. Personality: level of sophistication (education, timid factor, intelligence, etc.) 3. Knowledge of the right to refuse search 4. Environment: custodial or non-custodial; (No bright line rule, but it is much more difficult to obtain a valid consent from someone in custody) c. Subject to conditions d. Unlawful show of authority will vitiate consent. e. Request for counsel th 1. Consent given in custody subsequent to a request for counsel (6 Am right to a lawyer) can only be valid if the state can show that
the one in custody retracts the request for counsel, waives his right to counsel and gave consent to search. f. Common authority 1. If there are co-tenants to a dwelling, one tenant can only give consent to areas where he has sole control or there exists common authority. g. Reasonable belief of cop that one who has given consent actually has authority. 3. Exigent Circumstances a. Hot pursuit 1. Private to public. Hot pursuit gets you in. 2. Time constraints: Rx objective standard even if lose sight. 3. Nature of the offense: factor b/c concerned w/ cop safety if a weapon is involved. allowed to search for weapon. 4. No need for knock and notice: chance of violence lessoned when in hot pursuit. 5. Police can look where the person may be hiding or where a weapon may be. 6. Allowed to go into private home. b. PC that Evidence is in the Process of Being Destroyed 1. Cops can enter home and search/seize. (i.e. flushing toilet). 2. Need actual process of destruction before can enter. c. PC that there is evidence in the premises, and good faith belief that the evidence will be destroyed before they can obtain a warrant. 1. Freeze the scene pending the arrival of the warrant 2. Briefly further the investigation and restrict access to areas the evidence may be suspect free to leave. d. Limited Protective Sweep – Buie 1. A protective sweep is permitted if during an in-house search a cop possesses a Rx suspicion that others are in the house are associated with the criminal enterprise and pose a threat to the police the police. (Based on cop safety) 2. Police can look where that person may be hiding or where a weapon may fit. e. Imminent threat to life 1. Rx objective standard – scream will suffice. 4. Travel Stops and Vehicles a. Exceptions to SW Requirement 1. Immediate search w/ PC Carroll
a. Rule: If there is PC to believe that there is contraband or fruits of a crime in a vehicle, the cop, due to exigent circumstances, can search anywhere in the vehicle that the contraband might be. The search is only limited by the object being searched for; i.e. you could not look in the glove box for a rifle. b. 2 reasons for allowing i. Exigency of car because it is mobile ii. Reduced expectations of privacy for cars
c. PC to arrest does not give the cop the right to search the car. 2. Later search w/ PC: no contemporaneous req. Chambers a. If there is PC that evidence is in the car, the cop can search then or at a later time, even though there is no more exigency. b. Vs. Chadwick: could search trunk under chimel at time of arrest.. but once person separated from trunk, need to get SW. c. ↓ privacy expectation. Cars are exigent even when not exigent! b. Minor violation (Whren) 1. The court ruled the subjective, pre-textual reasons that an officer pulls over a person for violating minor traffic laws are irrelevant. 2. RULE (pre-textual stops): If cop has good/valid reason to pull a suspect over and PC arises during a legit seizure, then have PC to search the car. 3. Note: Plain View One can’t make something private that is deemed public. B/c VIN’s don’t have a Rx expectation of privacy, cop is allowed to reasonably reach in car to expose Vin and anything that is seen while doing so is admissible. (Subsequent to justifiable intrusion…) 4. No Robinson/Chimel search for minor traffic stop. But police can ask the driver to exit vehicle. c. Inventory Search (*Opperman Rule)-don’t need PC if it’s an inventory search 1. Rule: A warrantless inventory incident to the caretaking function is Rx if it is done pursuant to pre-approved police policy (to limit the discretion of the cop). 2. NEEDS TO BE AGENDA NEUTRAL. 3. Legal Reasoning: Rx b/c the officers were just conducting regular inventory search and the lower expectation of privacy as to ones car. 4. Policy of inventory search: a. Protect the owner’s property b. Protect police from false claims c. Protect police from danger 5. Concern: pretext must be done without an agenda. Subjective motivation of police should not be factor otherwise possibly illegal. a. If it looks as though the police are abusing the Opperman rule, then the evidence will be inadmissible. (i.e. waiting for a suspect to get into car so that can search car.) d. Container (Acevedo)
1. If there is PC to believe there is contraband in car, then cops can search anything in the car where contraband could be, including containers. Containers do not automatically require a warrant to open. Can open now or open later, no contemporaneous requirement. The Carroll/Chambers auto exception extends to the container. Court unclear if can search the entire car. Probably need to make a case that there must be PC for the entire car. If there is only PC for a container, the cops can only search those areas in the car that the container could be. Once the container is found, the search must end. Anything in plain view that is seen before the container is found is admissible.
2. 3.
e. Belton (Robinson/Chimel): Search incident to arrest gets you into entire
car, probably not the trunk.
5. Misc. Searches
a. Camara Warrant 1. When not dealing criminal matters, like health inspectors or other types of inspections. 2. Camara Warrant is easy to get, no cause or suspicion needed. 3. Serves to create a paper trail and put some restrictions on what inspector can do in terms of what, when, and where can be searched. 4. Heavily regulated industries do not go by Camara Warrant – Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Casino. Inspector can drop by anytime. Business owner knows he is getting into a heavily regulated business. b. Public School Officials (TLO) 1. If school official is acting in regulatory capacity (like a cop) then the 4th amendment does apply. 2. No need to get a warrant on school grounds. 3. To engage in a search and have the evidence useable the officials must have valid reasonable suspicion. 4. Also applies to students cars. c. Government Interest 1. If govt interest is greater than privacy concerns then no warrant needed. Railroad company wanted to drug test employees 6. Arrest Warrant + Rx Belief that the suspect is in HIS home – Payton a. Not 3rd party dwelling b. Subject to knock and notice c. May look for the suspect only and then must leave
SEARCH WITH WARRANT A. Obtaining – Need Probable Cause 1. PC for SW = Substantial probability that certain items are the fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of a crime and that these items are the presently found in a certain or particular place. 2. Purpose of a search warrant is to get pre-approval from the neutral detached magistrate. a. When have SW, the assumption is that the search is valid and D has burden of proof. 3. Information from a 3rd party informant a. Ag/Spinneli – Higher Threshold i. Is this source of info reliable (we want underlying facts that lead to conclusion that the guy is reliable)? ii. Did the source have first hand knowledge (sometime we can infer that there is first hand knowledge if the details are very specific)? b. Gates i. Look at totality of circumstances and all useable pieces of info to determine if probable that criminal activity is afoot. B. The Actual Warrant
1. Particularity, Description of Things, Specificity a. Who, What, Where i. Place: address and description ii. Thing: Describe items w/ as much particularity as possible. b. When the item you are looking for is per se contraband the court will allow a more general description in order to satisfy the specificity requirement of the SW. c. Mistake: It is enough that a Rx police officer at the time of the warrant can ascertain exactly where the place is. C. Executing 1. Must be executed within 10 days or when PC is gone, which ever comes first. If no more PC or past 10 days, then any items seized under it are excluded. 2. Nighttime: General is that you cannot execute a search at night, unless you plead your case to a judge and he signs off. 3. Scope of search warrant Proximity a. Proximity is not enough to search someone. May create Rx suspicion that criminal activity is afoot to briefly further investigation, but cannot frisk w/o Rx suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. 4. Knock and Notice – (method of entry to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of search and seizure) a. Before a cop enters a dwelling with PC to either arrest or search, either with or without a warrant, he must: knock and identify as officer, and wait a Rx amount of time. b. Exceptions: The necessity of the unannounced entry must be justified by objective facts that led to the officer’s belief that exigent circumstances were such that caused the entry to fall into one of the exceptions to the requirement i. Compliance will lead to officer peril. ii. Purpose of the search/arrest would be frustrated. iii. Hot Pursuit (private to public – D already knows police there) PLAIN VIEW – Use plain view as an extension to what police can do with regards to search once inside. Not an exception to the SW requirement. Definition: Subsequent to a justifiable prior intrusion, if the police are situated in a place where they have a right to be and they come upon evidence which they have PC to believe it is immediately incriminatory, they may seize it. Can Look Need to be in a place where the items you are searching for could Rx be. PC to believe it is incriminatory? Can’t seize something that does not have an immediately apparent incriminating character (guns are ok, but not videotapes unless that was on the search warrant). Once search complete, you can’t go back for anything found in Plain View. Need to seize immediately, so if do not get it at the time, can be PC to get SW.
SEIZURES
A. Was there a seizure? 1. Mendenhall/Delgado – Would a reasonable person feel so intimidated that they felt they could not simply turn and walk away? a. 4 Factors as to when a seizure has taken place (not all needed) i. Threatening presence of more than one officer ii. Display of weapons iii. Some manner of physical contact iv. Use of language or tone that compliance might be compelled 2. Hodari flight exception a. If a person were to flee, then they have not been seized b/c they must have felt they were free to leave. b. Scalia says in a flight scenario we need to have compliance or physical force in order to have a seizure. B. If a seizure, then ask what type of seizure is it? 1. Detention (The holding of a suspect w/o formal arrest during the investigation of the subject’s participation in criminal activity) a. Terry Stop i. Requires reasonable suspicion – particularized objective facts to believe criminal activity is afoot 1. If cops have PC then they can arrest, otherwise the cops can briefly and safely detain the suspect based on Rx suspicion and a brief furthering of the investigation is allowed in order to confirm or dispel that criminal activity was afoot. If continue past the brief point arrest and w/o PC, then evidence is inadmissible. ii. Exceptions to Rx Susp. requirement 1. Checkpoint stops – Border Stops (different analysis), Drunk Driving/Narcotic Stops a. Must be related to highway safety b. Intrusion must be minimal: brief stops c. Limited Cop Discretion: random iii. Once the officer has briefly furthered the investigation he must either arrest or cut loose. 1. Use hindsight approach to determine if the police acted reasonably and diligently (was the extended time the fault of the suspect?) iv. 3rd party informants 1. The tip can’t lack sufficient indicia of reliability to provide Rx suspicion to make a Terry stop: It must provide predictive information allowing the police the means to test the informant’s knowledge or credibility. b. Terry Frisk (req. separate analysis) i. Subsequent to a prior justifiable detention, if there is Rx suspicion that the D has a weapon, then for safety reasons, the officer may conduct a Terry frisk.
ii. Outer clothing frisk, that is least intrusive and reasonable. Officer may not dwell b/c then turns into a search. iii. Only allowed to further investigation if fell hard objects. iv. Non-Traditional Frisk 1. Did the cop act reasonably? 2. Michigan v. Long – Auto Exception – Police can do a frisk (a least intrusive search) of the areas in the car that would be immediately accessible to the driver (grab area). What about locked area? not allowed if locked. 2. Arrest a. Requires PC based on facts within the personal knowledge of the officer or affiant sufficient to convince a reasonably cautious person that an offense has been committed or is in the process of being committed by the accused. b. Warrantless Arrest in a Public Place i. A peace officer is permitted to arrest in a public place for a misdemeanor or felony committed in his presence as well as for a felony committed outside his presence, if there is probable cause for making the arrest, notwithstanding an adequate opportunity to procure a warrant. c. Process i. Felonies: W/in 10 days of taken into custody, have right to Prel. Hearing (neutral magistrate) to make sure that there is enough evidence to try the case. 1. Must show that more likely than not a crime was committed and more likely than not it was this guy who committed the crime.—must have PC at the prelim 2. If D wins PH and no PC can refile a ltd # of times. ii. Misdemeanors: PC hearing If cop has put a Gerstein stamp on his police report (take oath as to veracity as to what written in police report)—then w/o the cops presence can formulate PC. If no stamp/signature then D released from custody pending his trial. BODILY INTRUSIONS A. Schmerber balancing test a. People have reasonable expectation of privacy to their bodies and internal fluids. b. Use balancing test between defendant’s privacy interests, and society’s interest in obtaining the evidence. c. Take into consideration any exceptions to search warrant requirement. B. Rochin (Shocks the Conscience) a. Police may not undertake activities that shock the conscience C. Winston Test a. Bullet inside the body, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy b. Need a search warrant, but that is not the end. c. Balancing test. How badly do we need this evidence? What are risks?
5th Amendment A. Prevents one from being compelled by the state to testify against himself through either direct testimony, evidence, or actions. a. Something compelled is usually not trustworthy. b. Compelling is inherently evil. c. Can not even compel someone to hand over documents, because you are compelling them to say, ―I have the documents and I have control over them.‖ B. Physical Characteristics – If physical characteristics are exposed to the public, then no expectation of privacy and not considered testimonial. a. Voice – no expectation of privacy b. Tattoo – no expectation of privacy c. Stutter – not testimonial d. Spelling a specific word – Is testimonial (anything that probes your thought process, is there an additional subtextual message?) c. Lineup – Can be compelled to stand in a lineup because you have no expectation of privacy as to the way you look d. Blood – You have expectation of privacy but we can take it sometimes under Schmerber balancing test. e. Handwriting – no expectation of privacy because you do it everyday, but you probably do have an expectation of privacy as to how you spell certain words or pronounce them????? C. Documents – Can’t force one to turn over documents because it can be testimonial, they are saying they have access to the documents and have control over them. Subpoena DT may not be used, the police must search themselves. Exception is in lawyer’s office, subpoena DT is used to protect other files. This is where 3rd party hands over docs. The docs can be admitted but the way they were obtained can not be. 6th Amendment – Right to Counsel – Basically in all cases you have right to counsel except small claims court A. Atty-Client Privilege – Even communication to a 3 rd party that is in furtherance of the attnyclient privilege falls under the umbrella. A1. Once 6th amendment is invoked, police can no longer question D without a lawyer. To revoke, the defendant must initiate a revocation himself, and a fresh Miranda must be read. B. Public Defender to whom? 1. Must be indigent 2. Gideon – If a person is indigent and charged with a felony, then they must have attorney appointed. This applies to state and federal. 3. Argersinger – No indigent can be put in jail (or on probation and then in jail later on for violating probation), for any offense (misdemeanor), unless they have a lawyer. This rule puts the judge in a tenuous position of making a pre-trial determination if he is going to put this guy in jail or not. If he does not give the guy a lawyer then he can not put this guy in jail. This decision is purely about trying to balance the costs with justice. 4. Most states have their own statutes that require appointment for all except infraction 5. Appeals
a. Douglass -- every person convicted of a criminal offense has a right to an appellate lawyer for the first appeal, regardless of infraction, misdemeanor or felony. b. Ross – Everything past the first appeal is discretionary c. Death Penalty – Virtually all state statutes provide for attorney all the way up in death penalty cases. C. Tools (experts, test etc.) 1. Fundamental fairness says defendant must be given adequate opportunity to defend himself. Must be provided basic tools. 2. A separate money judge makes these decisions based on: a. benefit to defendant b. cost to the state c. probable value to the proceedings D. Conflict of interest (3 defendants in same case point finger at eachother) 1. Federal Court – Once the defense lawyer raises the issue of conflict of interest, the judge has the absolute obligation to make sufficient inquiry to ensure the risk of conflict is too remote to warrant separate counsel. 2. State Court – No requirement E. Faretta – State can’t force one to take counsel, you have an absolute 6 th amendment right to represent yourself 1. Once right to counsel is waived, also give up right to claim Ineffective counsel. 2. Burden is on the state to show by preponderance that waiver is ok (knowing, intelligent waiver) Factors – a. age b. physical and mental condition c. education and experience d. circumstances surrounding the case 3. Every time that you have a Faretta situation, the judge is going to appoint an advisory counsel. The advisory counsel will typically sit back in the court room and will not ever make contact with the defendant, if he does make contact without being called upon there could be a 6th amendment violation. F. What about choice of counsel? 1. It is absolutely within the sole discretion of the trial court (except when that discretion is abused) to appoint counsel for indigents. G. Marsden Hearing – Motion by D to appoint a different lawyer to D because the first lawyer is not competent. Prosecution is excluded from hearing. Judge does an ineffective assistance analysis. H. IAC – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Strickland test) 1. We must find that performance of counsel did not meet an objective standard of adequate counsel. (Look at substantive not strategy) 2. We must find that it made a difference. For conflict of interest IAC, defendant must say there was actual conflict, not mere potential for conflict. I. Wade – Bright line test – Absolute right to counsel at any post indictment/initiation critical stage
1. It is a critical stage if the lawyer would make a difference. J. Confessions 1. Massiah – Can attack a post indictment confession on 6 th amendment grounds. 2. If the police and/or its informant took some action other than merely listening that was deliberately designed to illicit incriminatory remarks, then we have a critical stage and counsel must be present. If no counsel present, then 6 th amendment violation. 3. Knowing exploitation by the state, of an opportunity to confront a D without counsel, is a much of a breach of the 6 th as if the police created the encounter. K. Escobedo – Extension of Wade (lay off this on the test) 1. The critical stage is when we go from a general investigation of a crime to a particularized focus. The presence of the lawyer would make a difference, so we extend the 6th amendment right to counsel to some pre-initiation scenarios. 14th Amendment – Due Process A. Was activity unfair and/or unreasonable so that it violates your due process rights? B. Lineups or Show Up 1. Was the lineup or showup unnecessarily suggestive? 2. Was the unnecessarily suggestive lineup reliable anyway? Factors – a. The opportunity of the witness to view the defendant at the time of the offense. b. The witness’ degree of attention at the encounter. c. The accuracy of the initial description. d. The level of certainty at the confrontation. e. The lapse of time between the criminal offense and the lineup. C. Confessions – Did the confession violate due process? 1. Was this voluntary? 2. Are the police tactics reprehensible? a. How long was the interrogation? b. What time of day was it? c. What is the intelligence of the D? d. Did the D ask for a lawyer? e. Did the D give a long narrative or was he just answering leading questions? Exclusionary Rule and Fruits – All evidence obtained by a search and/or seizure in violation of the constitution will be inadmissible. A. Mapp – Made exclusionary rule applicable to states. 1. Policy – To deter future police misconduct. This assumes that officers care about convictions. 2. Criticisms a. No difference between little error or big error by police. b. Lost prosecutions. c. Public Hostility d. Complicates the rules of search and seizure – judges may bend things now to get the evidence in, this creates weird exceptions to the general rules are created. e. Does it really deter?
f. Does it increase the incidence of cop perjury? g. Does not afford protection to the innocent 3. General Rule – If the police officer objectively acts reasonably, the evidence will be allowed in. B. Standing – Who can enforce the rule? Who can raise as defense? 1. You have standing if you suffer a violation where you have a Katz expectation, and also you have standing on anything that directly flows from a violation that YOU suffered. 2. What about social guests? a. Olson – Overnight guests do have expectation of privacy, but person there for business or even just visiting briefly, then probably no expectation. b. Passenger of car does not have same expectation of privacy as driver/owner. C. Fruit – Once evidence is unlawfully obtained, all evidence flowing from it will also be suppressed. (But For Analysis) 1. Independent Source and Inevitable Discovery a. If the police can show that the evidence, while may have flowed from other unlawful evidence, was actually obtained through an independent source, then evidence will be admissible. Take out the unlawful evidence and look at what we have left. b. If the police can show by preponderance of the evidence that the evidence would have been found anyway, then will be admitted. May have timing factors (police would have found 3 hours later so adjust evidence as to not allow any advantage to police) 2. Attenuating Circumstances. ―The taint of the illegal act may be washed away by an independent act or intervening act by defendant or 3 rd party which breaks the causal chain between the evidence and the illegality in such a way that the evidence is not, in fact, obtained by the exploitation of the defendant.‖ Has the illegal act been so attenuated as to dissipate the taint. Factors – 1. Miranda warnings are critical but they are not the sole consideration 2. The temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession 3. The presence of other intervening circumstances 4. The purpose and flagrancy of the initial misconduct (Rochin – Less likely to find attenuation the more flagrant the act) Miranda – 5th Amendment applies to settings outside the courtroom (Any custodial Interrogation) 1. The accused must be warned in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. 2, 3, 4. – get from outline. 5. If the individual indicates at anytime, before to or during questioning, that they would like to remain silent the interrogation must cease. The courts have interpreted this to mean that the request must be very clear and unequivocal. 6. Any statement taken after the person invokes is inadmissible. (If the person invokes and the police continue, the original statements are not tainted, but anything further will not be admitted. But those words can not be used as substantive evidence but can be used to impeach the witness.)
7. Must be an expressed waiver of the rights, a waiver will not be assumed by silence to the questions. (Cops can’t lie in getting the waiver. After the waiver is obtained the cop can lie in the interrogation process, but can not lie so much that it is a violation of due process.) 8. If the D initially waives, the waiver will remain valid for subsequent interrogations if they are done in a reasonable time. 9. ―Under emergency circumstances where people’s lives or safety may be in danger the police may dispense with Miranda and ask questions to allay their fears.‖
Take statements of D through following analysis: 1. Do we have state action? Non-state people are not governed by this. 2. Is it custodial? A. ―a person has been taken into custody if he has been deprived of his freedom in any significant way.‖ This looked at from perspective of D. No need for Miranda warning during a Terry stop. 3. Is there a question pending? A. Do the cops know that their words or actions are reasonably likely to illicit an incriminating response from this suspect and those words or actions are outside the scope of normal attending? 4. Do we have a valid waiver? EXAM: 1. Talk about Miranda anytime the D opens his mouth-even if not incriminatory on its face. 2. Any time have a Q and A, if have non-narrative approach-must take each individual statement by the accused and push it through Miranda. Some may not be custodial interrogation; some might later be a custodial interrogation.