person invokes privilege (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

person invokes privilege in North Carolina

5 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2006 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Miranda v. Arizona green
scotus · 1966
2 sentences

2006Ed. 2d 121 (1966), provides that custodial interrogation must cease when a suspect indicates he wishes to remain silent. ‘At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise.’ Id. at 474, 16 L.

1995“At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise.” Id. at 474, 16 L.

51981–2006
State v. Martin green
nc · 1978
2 sentences

1982The narrow issue before the Court in Miranda , however, was precisely stated as “the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation.” Id. at 439 , 16 L.Ed. 2d at 704 , 86 S.Ct. at 1609 ; State v. Martin, 294 N.C. 702 , 242 S.E. 2d 762 (1978).

1982The narrow issue before the Court in Miranda , however, was precisely stated as “the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation.” Id. at 439 , 16 L.Ed. 2d at 704 , 86 S.Ct. at 1609 ; State v. Martin, 294 N.C. 702 , 242 S.E. 2d 762 (1978).

11982–1982

Where else courts name it

IL 33 (1973–2026) CA 31 (1967–2017) PA 16 (1972–2025) TX 15 (1976–2023) NY 8 (1972–2003) MI 8 (1974–2018) OH 7 (1977–2013) IN 7 (1974–2020) MS 7 (1978–2025) NJ 6 (1986–2008) GA 6 (1990–2018) AZ 6 (1972–2015) FL 5 (1980–2018) VA 5 (1981–2010) MD 5 (1969–1980) NC 5 (1981–2006) WA 4 (1969–2017) OR 4 (1968–1986) ME 3 (1981–1998) MO 3 (1979–1998) TN 3 (1975–2017) WI 3 (1978–2003) AL 3 (1981–1999) KY 3 (2012–2017) WY 2 (2004–2004) ID 2 (1976–1980)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check