Miranda Flashcards
Berkemer v. McCarty (1984; Marshall)
The meaning of custody for purposes of Miranda. Remember, custody = would a reasonable person feel like he/she is free to leave. “A person is entitled to the projections of Miranda, regardless of the nature or severity of the offense for which he is suspected or for which he was arrested.” Also, “the noncoercive aspect of ordinary traffic stops prompts us to hold that persons temporarily detained pursuant to such stops are not in custody for purposes of Miranda.”
New York v. Quarles (1984; Rehnquist)
The public safety exception to Miranda. “When officer’s concern can be reasonably understood as prompted by a concern for public safety.” Application to be determined by objective reasonableness, not by officer’s subjective motivation. Here, gun in supermarket.
JDB v. North Carolina (2011; Sotomayor)
13-year-old 7th grade student. Rule: A child’s age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis, so long as the child’s age was known to the officer at the time of police questioning, or would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer. BUT that is not to say that a child’s age will be determinative, or even a significant factor in every case.” The idea here is that children are more vulnerable or susceptible to outside pressures than adults. The Court remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether JDB was in custody.
Rhode Island v. Innis (1980; Stewart)
Meaning of interrogation under Miranda. Interrogated = questioning; or words/actions that police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. Here, D was not interrogated when officers made “a few offhand remarks” about needing to find the gun so the handicapped kids from the nearby school wouldn’t find the gun
Illinois v. Perkins (1990; Kennedy)
Miranda warnings are not required when the suspect is unaware that he is speaking to a law enforcement officer and gives a voluntary statement. Here, not an interrogation when undercover agent was placed in D’s cell and D made statements about a murder.
Arizona v. Mauro (1987)
officer recording of convo between suspect and wife was not an interrogation even though officers were aware that Maruo might make incriminating statements to his wife; a mere possibility is insufficient to meet RI v. Innis standard. Officers do not interrogate a suspect simply by hoping he will incriminate himself
Michigan v. Mosley (1975; Stewart)
The admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has invoked RTS depends upon whether his “right to cut off questioning” was “scrupulously honored.” Here, Mosley’s right to cut off questioning was fully respected. After more than 2 hours from first invoking RTS, he was questioned by a different officer, in a different location, about an unrelated crime. He was given full Miranda warnings before this second interrogation.
Edwards v. Arizona (1981; White)
When a suspect invokes RTC, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights. The accused, having invoked RTC, must not be subject to further interrogation until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. HERE, statement was not admissible b/c when police returned next day after Edwards invoked RTC, it was not at Edward’s suggestion or request and was made w/o access to counsel.
Oregon v. Bradshaw (1983)
“initiation” for purposes of Edwards: here, the plurality found that Bradshaw asking the officer “What’s going to happen to me now” just before transport from the police station to the jail constituted initiation
Davis v. United States (1994; O’Connor)
To invoke RTC, the suspect must articulate his/her desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. Here, D’s statement “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer” was not sufficient to invoke RTC
Maryland v. Shatzer (2009; Scalia)
Law enforcement officers may attempt to obtain a waiver of the RTC from a suspect who was invoked his right on a prior occasion, if it has been at least 14 days
