In our continuing case with Scott Mayo (the accused) and Basil Scowen (the victim), Mayo shot Scowen after an argument ensued.  Based on the known facts at this time the police appropriately arrested Mayo based on probable cause.  The probable cause utilized in the arrest is Mayo being in possession of a firearm, verbally confessing to shooting Scowen, and witnesses providing eye witness verbal statements on various aspects of the events leading to the shooting.  The totality of all these things combined give a reasonable objective person belief that Mayo shot Scowen.  The police did not violate Mayo’s constitutional rights in not reading him his rights so long as they did not ask him any incriminating questions or questions that can be misconstrued as incriminating.  If Mayo decided to talk about the shooting that would fall under a “sudden utterance” rule.  After Mayo completed his utterance, then the police would need to read him his rights.  It is assumed the police conducted a search incident to arrest of Mayo and based on where he was that search was most likely of his person and any area within arm’s reach.  That said, if the police then searched Mayo’s vehicle without consent or a warrant THEN Mayo’s 4th Amendment right would be violated.  However, that does not seem to be the case here. 

respond to this discussion question in 100 words