Reference no: EM13810611

Reference: "Thermal Imaging." Sam is engaged in the criminal activity of growing marijuana in his home. He used heat lamps in the process. The police randomly select his street to search for illegal activity. Without any kind of a warrant, they used a thermal imager, an instrument that detects heat emissions, to determine that he was possibly engaged in illegal activity. The police immediately broke down Sam's door, searched his home, and arrested him. The police officer in charge told Sam that because marijuana was involved, he lost his rights against self incrimination and that he might as well confess. Sam proceeded to confess to growing marijuana and a number of other crimes. The judge was so angry with Sam that he threw him in jail for two months without any kind of hearing. Sam's lawyer, who just graduated from law school, is not sure if the police acted legally in Sam's case by using the thermal imager. Sam's lawyer is concerned that the judge has not granted Sam a hearing.

Which of the following is true on the issue of whether Sam had a right to remain silent?
A. The officer was incorrect, and Sam had the right to remain silent based on his constitutional protection against
self-incrimination.
B. The officer was correct that sam had no right to remain silent, and there has never been a constitutional right entitling a defendant to remain silent.

C. The officer was correct that Sam had no right to remain silent because while at one time there was a constitutional

right entitling a defendant to remain silent, that right was repealed by constitutional amendment.
D. The officer was correct, and Sam had no right to remain silent because the right against self-incriminatior only
protects against crimes involving physical harm to another.
E. The officer was partially correct because while Samhad a right to remain silent about other crimes, he did not
have the right to remain silent about the drugs found in the initial search.