Utah Man Waives Miranda Rights, Admits to Murder and Scrubbing Crime Scene

An Ogden Utah Man was arrested after he waived his Miranda rights, openly admitting to murdering a woman and scrubbing the crime scene.

Criminal homicide

Photo by: Rynerson Bail Bonds

The deceased body of an adult woman was found lying in some brush on the side of a road in South Ogden last Monday. The woman appeared to have several stab wounds, and police on scene were unable to locate a suspect or a weapon. Officers proceeded to the woman’s apartment nearby and spoke to her roommates who agreed to accompany officers to the station to be interviewed.

Waived Miranda Rights

Prior to the police interview, one of the roommates named Jesus Martinez Ramos Jr was read his Miranda Rights, warning him that anything he said could be used against him while reminding him he could request an attorney to represent him. Ramos waived his Miranda Rights and spoke openly to police without the presence of any legal representation. During the interview, Ramos admitted to murdering his female roommate, moving her body, scrubbing the crime scene, and throwing away evidence-including the murder weapon. Ramos then went a step further by telling officers where they could find the knife used in the attack. Ramos was charged with first degree criminal homicide and second degree obstruction of justice.

No harm in requesting an attorney

Many people who are facing criminal charges assume if they tell investigators everything they want to hear, maybe they will either be spared or given better treatment for their extra cooperation. Unfortunately, rarely does it work out in the best interest of the suspect to do so. Sometimes, being open and agreeable with investigators can lead to unexpected or unwarranted charges that may not have been true, such as premeditation of the criminal events. Prior to any police questioning, it is always encouraged to request the presence of an attorney to guide a suspect through the questioning. Even if the evidence is stacked against the suspect, an attorney can still ensure they are afforded all rights, including protecting themselves against self-incrimination.

Unwarranted Search of the Curtilage of a Home

Most American citizens know the Fourth Amendment protects their home against unwarranted searches and seizures, but what about the yard, patio, and other curtilage of the home?

Extended protection

Photo by: Natalie Maynor

The Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” but how far does the protection of the home extend? Although the Fourth Amendment doesn’t specify the area surrounding the dwelling as part of the protected home, the United States Supreme Court has on more than one occasion extended the constitutional protection to include the curtilage surrounding a home. In Oliver v. United States (1984) the curtilage was said to be the “area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of man’s home and the privacies of life”.

Curtilage defined

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the Curtilage of a home is “The enclosed space of ground and buildings immediately surrounding a dwelling-house. In its most comprehensive and proper legal signification, it includes all that space of ground and buildings thereon which is usually enclosed within the general fence immediately surrounding a principal messuage and outbuildings, and yard closely adjoining to a dwelling-house”. The U.S. Supreme court stated in United States v. Dunn (1987) that: curtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by.”

Visibility of illegal items or activity

Law enforcement officers are permitted to enter the curtilage of a home to knock on the door, although this does not permit them to do a search of the perimeter of a home without a warrant. This protection of the home’s curtilage does not dismiss illegal items or activities in plain view however. In United States v. Bausby (2013) officers saw a motorcycle in the yard of Chris Bausby that matched the description of a motorcycle stolen months prior. The motorcycle was in plain site from the street, and had a “for-sale” sign drawing attention from anyone passing by. Officers entered the yard, knocked on the door, and the proceeded to identify the VIN number on the motorcycle. A search warrant was issued and the stolen motorcycle and other items were confiscated. U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a Bausby’s claim of a Fourth Amendment violation by stating: “What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection” (Katz v. United States 1967).

Photo by: Nana B. Agyei

Open fields doctrine

While items openly visible to the public are not protected under the home’s curtilage, neither are large areas on the property that are unable to be closed in such as open fields. In Oliver v. United States (1984) The Supreme Court noted that “. . . open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops that occur in open fields.”

Help defending searches of home’s curtilage

Utah residents facing criminal charges who feel their Fourth Amendment rights protecting their home’s curtilage from unwarranted searches and seizures was violated are encouraged to find a reputable attorney to go over the case. A respectable attorney will help to defend the charges against them and ensure they maintain the privacy and protection promised by the United States Constitution.

Unlawful Suppression of Evidence Results in Mistrial

A mistrial has been declared in the case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy after it was determined the prosecution was guilty of unlawful suppression of evidence, a violation of Bundy’s constitutional rights.

Rancher vs the feds

Photo by: Gage Skidmore

Cliven Bundy is a cattle Rancher residing in Clark County Nevada with ties to many local families throughout southern Utah. Bundy has been in a long-standing disagreement with the federal government over the right to have his cattle graze on public land, which is family had been doing for generations. The feds wanted to require a permit and collect yearly grazing fees plus arrears while Bundy claimed requiring a fee for use of the land was erroneous since the land belonged to the state. Over twenty years of debating this right ended when the BLM closed off over 140,000 acres of land and confiscated any trespassing livestock found roaming within the off-limits acreage. Bundy along with friends and family protested the capture of the cattle and after heated negotiations regained control of the livestock. Bundy continued his family traditions of grazing his cattle on public lands.

Arrested on federal charges

Almost two years after the Nevada cattle standoff, Bundy travelled to Oregon where his sons and others had taken over control of a vacant ranger station at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in support of two local ranchers charged with federal arson while protecting their property. On route to that scene however, Bundy was apprehended at the airport and arrested on multiple federal charges related to the Nevada Cattle Standoff. Some of the charges include conspiracy, assault on a federal officer, threatening an officer, as well as firearms charges. His sons and another individual were also arrested for their involvement in both the Nevada and Oregon standoffs. The Bundy sons and others involved in the Oregon standoff went to trial for that incident and were acquitted by a jury of all federal charges. They still faced charges for their involvement in Nevada alongside their father Cliven Bundy. This court experience in Nevada turned out to be very different from the one in Oregon however.

Unlawful Suppression of evidence

Photo by: Allen Allen

During the court proceedings for the Bundy clan in Nevada, the defense discovered multiple items of crucial evidence obtained by the prosecution had been withheld. Suppression of evidence is defined as when a party in a trial unlawfully withholds evidence that could be useful in exonerating the defendant(s) in the case. Some of the evidence items withheld from the defense included video surveillance of Cliven Bundy’s home as well as confirmation on the presence of snipers surrounding the Nevada cattle incident, increasing tensions. The feds denied allegations of unlawful suppression of evidence until proof emerged and they were forced to recant their omissions, claiming their careless handling of evidence was not intentional. The defense, not satisfied that the federal government could make numerous “honest” evidence mistakes in a federal trial claimed six violations to the Brady Rule. The judge agreed and declared a mistrial due to unlawful suppression of evidence or a violation of due process which is a constitutional right.

The Brady Rule

The Bundy family and another man were released on all charges thanks to the 1963 Brady v. Maryland case which was monumental in ensuring all exculpatory evidence, or evidence that might be helpful to the defense, is shared by prosecutors. In the case of Brady, prosecutors had obtained a written confession to a murder by another individual, yet suppressed that evidence and tried Brady of the murder as well. Once the courts realized there was evidence that could have exonerated the defendant of murder charges, they declared his due process rights had been violated and thus the Brady Rule was born. The Brady Rule ensures the due process law protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution are withheld and that no state of federal government shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Due process is defined as by the United States Courts as “the constitutional guarantee that a defendant will receive a fair and impartial trial.” Anyone who feels they are facing a trial with an unfair advantage due to due process violations should consult with a criminal defense attorney who will ensure all evidence vital to one’s defense is unveiled..