A new stage of interrogation, the “decision zone,” was affirmed for the first time, by the Supreme Court, in Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010). This decision zone stage is that interval of time, however brief or prolonged, after officers have administered the suspect their rights, but prior to the suspect deciding whether to waive or to invoke those (Miranda) rights. However, controlling precedents regarding trickery or deception have centered only on law enforcement officers’ behavior before a suspect has been advised of their rights or after the suspect has waived their rights. Interestingly, the Courts have not considered the constitutionality of police trickery within the decision zone.

Discussion Question

The purpose of this question is to assess your knowledge and understanding of the relevant concepts posited in the readings, lectures, and videos. This requires that you submit a well-reasoned and appropriately supported post, using correctly formatted APA citings and references, regarding the the issues surrounding police trickery during the interval of time after officers have administered the suspect their rights, but prior to the suspect deciding whether to waive or to invoke those (Miranda) rights.

For this discussion, respond to the following:
•Discuss what might amount to unconstitutional trickery in the decision zone and  explain why, using specific court cases and other reasoning from the readings or research to support your post..

Please reference and cite your readings and viewings in support of your responses.