Problem:
A murderer is arrested, but the rookie street officer making the arrest fails to Mirandize the suspect prior to asking him where the body and the weapon are. After seizing that evidence, the case is turned over to a detective who reads the suspect his rights in hopes to be able to conduct a legitimate interrogation. The suspect tells the detective he wants an attorney, so no further questions are asked. Since the exclusionary rule only applies to the Fourth Amendment and not the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, would the statements and evidence be admissible in court?