Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2012–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Salvador Parra, Also Known as Salvador Ledezma, United States of America v. Jose Alfredo Sotelo, Also Known as Ricardo Duartegreen2 sentences2012See , e.g ., United States v. Parra , 2 F.3d 1058, 1068 (10th Cir. 1993) (officer did "not question Sotelo to obtain general booking information. 2012See, e.g., United States v. Parra, 2 F.3d 1058, 1068 (10th Cir.1993) (officer did "not question Sotelo to obtain general booking information. | 2 | 2 |
Brigham City v. Stuartgreen2 sentences2015App. 2015) (to determine whether a particular question falls within the booking exception to Miranda, this Court asks “whether the question reasonably relates to a legitimate administrative concern, applying an objective standard.”); id. (“If a question is a legitimate administrative question, then it does not matter whether the officer should know that the question is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”). 20 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 45-46 (2000). 21 Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 405 (2006) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 22 Id. 5 citizens.” 2015App. 2015) (to determine whether a particular question falls within the booking exception to Miranda, this Court asks “whether the question reasonably relates to a legitimate administrative concern, applying an objective standard.”); id. (“If a question is a legitimate administrative question, then it does not matter whether the officer should know that the question is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”). 20 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 45-46 (2000). 21 Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 405 (2006) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 22 Id. 5 citizens.” | 1 | 1 |
City of Indianapolis v. Edmondgreen1 sentence2015App. 2015) (to determine whether a particular question falls within the booking exception to Miranda, this Court asks “whether the question reasonably relates to a legitimate administrative concern, applying an objective standard.”); id. (“If a question is a legitimate administrative question, then it does not matter whether the officer should know that the question is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”). 20 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 45-46 (2000). 21 Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 405 (2006) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 22 Id. 5 citizens.” | 1 | 1 |
Cruz, Adelfo Ramirezgreen1 sentence2015App. 2015) (to determine whether a particular question falls within the booking exception to Miranda, this Court asks “whether the question reasonably relates to a legitimate administrative concern, applying an objective standard.”); id. (“If a question is a legitimate administrative question, then it does not matter whether the officer should know that the question is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”). 20 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 45-46 (2000). 21 Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 405 (2006) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 22 Id. 5 citizens.” | 1 | 1 |
Gamboa v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574 , 581–82 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Munizgreen1 sentence2012See id. at 608, 110 S.Ct. 2638 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring) (deciding it was "unnecessary to determine whether the questions fall within the 'routine booking question’ exception to Miranda Justice Brennan recognizes”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alford, Cecil Edward
green
1 sentence2020To determine whether a particular question falls within the booking exception, we ask “whether the question reasonably relates to a legitimate administrative concern, applying an objective standard.” Alford, 358 S.W.3d at 659-60 . 14 Under Article 38.22, no oral statement of an accused made as a result of custodial interrogation shall be admissible against an accused in a criminal proceeding unless (1) the statement was recorded, and (2) prior to the statement but during the recording, the accused was warned of his rights and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived those rights. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.