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.
20 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 2006–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berkemer v. McCartygreen2 sentences2026“Persons temporarily detained for the purposes of an investigation are not ‘in custody’ for Miranda purposes, and the right to Miranda warnings is not triggered during an investigative detention.” Hauer, 466 S.W.3d at 893 (citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-40 (1984)). 2025Hauer v. State, 466 S.W.3d 886, 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-40 (1984); State v. Stevenson, 958 S.W.2d 824, 829 (Tex. Crim. | 9 | 11 |
Geoffrey Spencer Hauer v. Stategreen2 sentences2026“Persons temporarily detained for the purposes of an investigation are not ‘in custody’ for Miranda purposes, and the right to Miranda warnings is not triggered during an investigative detention.” Hauer, 466 S.W.3d at 893 (citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-40 (1984)). 2025Hauer v. State, 466 S.W.3d 886, 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-40 (1984); State v. Stevenson, 958 S.W.2d 824, 829 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 6 |
State v. Stevensongreen2 sentences2025Hauer v. State, 466 S.W.3d 886, 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-40 (1984); State v. Stevenson, 958 S.W.2d 824, 829 (Tex. Crim. 2024Hauer v. State, 466 S.W.3d 886, 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (citing Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 440 ); State v. Stevenson, 958 S.W.2d 824, 829 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 6 |
Herrera v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Herrera v. State , 241 S.W.3d 520, 526-27 (Tex.Cr.App. 2007) (mere filing of motion to suppress does not thrust burden on the state to show compliance with Miranda unless and until defendant proves that statements he wishes to exclude were result of custodial interrogation) and at 533-34 (Cochran, J., concurring) ("The right to Miranda warnings applies once the defendant establishes that the setting is one of custodial interrogation. [Footnote omitted]. 2008See Herrera v. State, 241 S.W.3d 520, 526-27 (Tex.Cr.App.2007) (mere filing of motion to suppress does not thrust burden on the state to show compliance with Miranda unless and until defendant proves that statements he wishes to exclude were result of custodial interrogation) and at 533-34 (Cochran, J., concurring) (“The right to Miranda warnings applies once the defendant establishes that the setting is one of custodial interrogation. [Footnote omitted]. | 3 | 3 |
Dowthitt v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 438–40; Arthur v. State, 216 10 S.W.3d 50, 56, 58 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (citing Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244, 254 (Tex. Crim. 2008See Berkemer , 468 U.S. at 438 B 40; Arthur v. State , 216 S.W.3d 50, 56, 58 (Tex. App. C Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (citing Dowthitt v. State , 931 S.W.2d 244, 254 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Griffith v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Griffith v. State, 55 S.W.3d 598, 603 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). 2006See Griffith v. State, 55 S.W.3d 598, 603 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). | 2 | 2 |
Ortiz v. Stategreen1 sentence2026“Both detention and arrest involve a restraint on one’s freedom of movement; the difference is in - 10 - 04-24-00604-CR the degree.” Ortiz v. State, 421 S.W.3d 887, 890 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Kuether v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Lerma, 543 S.W.3d at 190 ; Kuether, 523 S.W.3d at 808 (“Persons temporarily detained for purposes of investigation are not ‘in custody’ for Miranda purposes, and thus the right to Miranda warnings is not triggered during an investigative detention.”). | 1 | 1 |
Lerma v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Lerma, 543 S.W.3d at 190 ; Kuether, 523 S.W.3d at 808 (“Persons temporarily detained for purposes of investigation are not ‘in custody’ for Miranda purposes, and thus the right to Miranda warnings is not triggered during an investigative detention.”). | 1 | 1 |
Howard Smith Bennett v. Albert Passic, Sheriff, Etc.green1 sentence2021Therefore “the remedy for a Miranda violation is the exclusion from evidence of any compelled self-incrimination, not a section 1983 action.” Id. (citing Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1263 (10th Cir.1976), which provides: “The Constitution and laws of the United States do not guarantee [plaintiff] the right to Miranda warnings. | 1 | 1 |
Abernathy v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Hernandez v. State, 107 S.W.3d 41, 48 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, pet. ref’d) (investigatory detentions do not require Miranda warnings); Abernathy v. State, 963 S.W.2d 822, 824 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. ref’d) (observing the Supreme Court had held that a “motorist was not in custody for purposes of Miranda even though the traffic officer ‘apparently decided as soon as [the motorist] stepped out of his car that [the motorist] would be taken into custody and charged with a traffic offense’”); Simmons v. State, 14-07-00301-CR, 2008 WL 2580380 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Hernandez v. State, 107 S.W.3d 41, 48 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, pet. ref’d) (investigatory detentions do not require Miranda warnings); Abernathy v. State, 963 S.W.2d 822, 824 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. ref’d) (observing the Supreme Court had held that a “motorist was not in custody for purposes of Miranda even though the traffic officer ‘apparently decided as soon as [the motorist] stepped out of his car that [the motorist] would be taken into custody and charged with a traffic offense’”); Simmons v. State, 14-07-00301-CR, 2008 WL 2580380 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] | 1 | 1 |
McCoy v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 438–40; Arthur v. State, 216 10 S.W.3d 50, 56, 58 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (citing Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244, 254 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Arthur v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Berkemer , 468 U.S. at 438 B 40; Arthur v. State , 216 S.W.3d 50, 56, 58 (Tex. App. C Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (citing Dowthitt v. State , 931 S.W.2d 244, 254 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jackson Warren v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska James Breen Sandra L. Myers and David M. Beggs
green
1 sentence2021Therefore “the remedy for a Miranda violation is the exclusion from evidence of any compelled self-incrimination, not a section 1983 action.” Id. (citing Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1263 (10th Cir.1976), which provides: “The Constitution and laws of the United States do not guarantee [plaintiff] the right to Miranda warnings. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.