Flashcards Studio

In a crowded city festival, plainclothes officers detain Mateo Ramos without a warrant and without probable cause, claiming they observed him discard a small packet believed to contain illegal drugs. Ramos is brought to the police station and held in custody. At booking, Ramos does not object to the arrest or to the manner of arrest. In custody, the police question him and obtain a written confession. They also seize Ramos’s smartwatch, from which messages are later used to link him to a drug distribution network. The defense moves to suppress the drugs, the in-custody confession, and the smartwatch messages on the ground that the arrest was illegal for lack of probable cause and absence of a warrant. Advise on waiver of objections to irregularities: (a) Identify the controlling doctrine on waiver of objections to irregularities in arrest and subsequent proceedings; (b) Distinguish which irregularities may be waived and which cannot; (c) Apply the doctrine to the facts and determine whether Ramos’s failure to object at booking constitutes a waiver, and the effect on the admissibility of the seized drugs, the in-custody confession, and the smartwatch messages.