Whether statements obtained during a custodial police interrogation in violation of the Constitution, law, and state law should be suppressed by the district court

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED «rf Sshilemerts mode during a COeLLi VE police lrterrogahow were obtawed ix violatow of Consttution,| law ard late Suppressecl by the Oistniz# Louk Should the Sticke feo albwed te ube j Hegally cbtaived suppresed statements aguirst pe. under the Buise. of “impeachment” b hy. Jliaht thot trial tesdy ory Contawed exculp/ t Chet 2 ie ri ' 1m” v Lu LP/ for, at Copsistepp r Wot provided to police ? PY ) tas ° TH a Citizew 15 devied VEquestas Couvsel, and coerted into sptaKing jr we police. trtespaphon without Convee (eseat4, what teed 15 there when bys cont appointed, kk ners Kebngwe. to (ise chins of police C0efe1or, ° Should police mow ipulate andl Loe sce. base ~abibing Citizens ip v Fo ; ; Cotesing” whew they raise. claims et selt-debenze and (Eq ues Fo have Lourse| fresenyt |