If a suspect is not advised of their Miranda rights during custodial interrogation, any statements made are generally inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief. However, such statements can be used for impeachment purposes if the suspect testifies and contradicts those statements. This exclusion helps to ensure that the suspect’s rights are protected during custodial interrogations.
The exclusionary rule generally prohibits the use of evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures. However, one exception is the "good faith" exception, which allows evidence to be admitted if the police acted under the belief that their search was lawful, even if it turns out that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. This exception is based on the idea that excluding evidence in such cases would not necessarily serve the rule's deterrent purpose.
In Idaho, as in many jurisdictions, the use of deadly force in self-defense is justified only when the person reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury. Deadly force cannot be used to protect property alone, and the duty to retreat does not generally apply if the person is in their own home (the "castle doctrine" often applies). The initial aggressor may claim self-defense if they have withdrawn from the confrontation and communicated their intent to do so.
The search incident to arrest exception allows police to search the area within the suspect’s immediate control and the immediate vicinity of the arrest. This generally includes the suspect’s vehicle if it is within their reach at the time of the arrest. However, searches of a home without a warrant, items outside the suspect's immediate control, and cell phones require specific conditions or separate legal justification beyond the search incident to arrest doctrine.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects against being tried twice for the same offense by the same sovereign. However, it does not prevent separate prosecutions by different sovereigns, such as state and federal governments. Therefore, a defendant can be tried in both state and federal court for the same conduct because they are considered separate jurisdictions.
