Miranda & Police Questioning
Rulings about Miranda warnings, custodial interrogation, asking for a lawyer, and voluntary statements. Summaries from Criminal Defense Resources™ are general education for pro per/pro se defendants and families, not legal advice.
5 rulings, newest first.
Vega v. Tekoh
The Court held that a violation of the Miranda rules, by itself, does not give a person the right to sue an officer for money damages under the federal civil rights law (42 U.S.C. section 1983).
Doody v. Ryan
The full Ninth Circuit held that a 17-year-old's confession, given after a lengthy overnight interrogation in an Arizona murder investigation, was obtained in violation of Miranda because the warnings were confusing and played down, and that the confession was involuntary. Federal habeas relief was granted.
United States v. Craighead
The Ninth Circuit held that questioning in a person's own home can be "custodial" for Miranda purposes when the setting is police-dominated. Courts look at factors such as how many officers were there, whether they were armed, whether the person was restrained or isolated, and whether he was told he was free to leave.
Edwards v. Arizona
The Court held that once a person in custody asks for a lawyer, police must stop questioning until a lawyer is present, unless the person himself starts further conversation with police.
Miranda v. Arizona
The Court held that statements made during custodial police interrogation cannot be used against the defendant unless police first give warnings: the right to remain silent, that statements can be used in court, the right to a lawyer, and that a lawyer will be appointed if the person cannot afford one.
Get new rulings by email
A short, free email when we add new rulings and resources. No spam. Unsubscribe any time.