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.
16 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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 sentences2007McCarty , 468 U.S. at 440 . {¶ 31} However, Miranda does not apply to Terry detentions. 2003No. 95-L-126, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 1808 , 13, citing Berkemer v. McCarty (1984), 468 U.S. 420 , 426 . {¶ 27} In the case sub judice, however, Officer Doyle's question to appellant about the object he felt in his pocket was an on-scene investigative questioning, which does not trigger the requirement of Miranda warnings. | 3 | 5 |
State v. Neyland (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2023As a result, the requirement of Miranda warnings “applies only when a suspect is subjected to both custody and interrogation.” State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2014-Ohio-1914 , 12 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 119 . {¶44} “A Miranda waiver need not be in writing to be valid.” North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). 2023As a result, the requirement of Miranda warnings “applies only when a suspect is subjected to both custody and interrogation.” State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2014-Ohio-1914 , 12 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 119 . {¶44} “A Miranda waiver need not be in writing to be valid.” North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Van Fossengreen2 sentences1999See also Berkemer, supra. at 434 and State v. Van Fossen (1984), 19 Ohio App.3d 281 , 284 . 1996See Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 434 , 104 S.Ct. at 3147 , 82 L.Ed.2d at 331 ; Van Fossen, 19 Ohio App.3d at 284 , 19 OBR at 455-456, 484 N.E.2d at 194-195 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mapson, Unpublished Decision (10-5-2006)green1 sentence2012Cuyahoga No. 87409, 2006-Ohio-5248, ¶ 22 (“Since Douglas’ investigatory stop of Mapson ‘did not rise to the level of a custodial arrest,’ his question of whether Mapson had ‘anything’ on his person did not ‘trigger the requirement of Miranda warnings.’ Mapson’s answer, viz., that he was carrying a type of illegal contraband, in turn, gave Douglas cause immediately to remove the item from Mapson’s pocket.” (Citation omitted.)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sneedgreen2 sentences2006New York v. Quarles (1984) 467 U.S. 649 , 657-658 ; see, also, State v. Sneed , 166 Ohio App.3d 492 , 2006-Ohio-1749 , at ¶ 18-19 . 2006New York v. Quarles (1984) 467 U.S. 649 , 657-658 ; see, also, State v. Sneed , 166 Ohio App.3d 492 , 2006-Ohio-1749 , at ¶ 18-19 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
New York v. Quarles
green
2 sentences2006New York v. Quarles (1984) 467 U.S. 649 , 657-658 ; see, also, State v. Sneed , 166 Ohio App.3d 492 , 2006-Ohio-1749 , at ¶ 18-19 . 1999New York v. Quarles (1984), 467 U.S. 649 , 654 ; Oregon v. Elstad (1985), 470 U.S. 298 , 306 , fn. 1. | 2 | 1999–2006 |
State v. Gaston
green
2 sentences2003Id. 2003State v. Gaston (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 835 , 842 . {¶ 18} In the case sub judice, Patrolman Perkio's questions to appellant about the shooting were an on-scene investigation, which did not trigger the requirement of Miranda warnings. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
North Carolina v. Butler
green
2 sentences2023As a result, the requirement of Miranda warnings “applies only when a suspect is subjected to both custody and interrogation.” State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2014-Ohio-1914 , 12 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 119 . {¶44} “A Miranda waiver need not be in writing to be valid.” North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). 2023As a result, the requirement of Miranda warnings “applies only when a suspect is subjected to both custody and interrogation.” State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2014-Ohio-1914 , 12 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 119 . {¶44} “A Miranda waiver need not be in writing to be valid.” North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Burnside
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 478 . {¶21} The Miranda safeguards “are not required where a suspect is simply taken into custody, but rather where a suspect in custody is subjected to interrogation.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 , 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2014-Ohio-1914 , 12 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 119 (the requirement of Miranda warnings “applies only when a suspect is subjected to both custody and interrogation”). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Rhode Island v. Innis
green
2 sentences2022Id. at 478 . {¶21} The Miranda safeguards “are not required where a suspect is simply taken into custody, but rather where a suspect in custody is subjected to interrogation.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 , 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2014-Ohio-1914 , 12 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 119 (the requirement of Miranda warnings “applies only when a suspect is subjected to both custody and interrogation”). 2022Id. at 478 . {¶21} The Miranda safeguards “are not required where a suspect is simply taken into custody, but rather where a suspect in custody is subjected to interrogation.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 , 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2014-Ohio-1914 , 12 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 119 (the requirement of Miranda warnings “applies only when a suspect is subjected to both custody and interrogation”). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Goodspeed, Unpublished Decision (4-9-2004)
green
1 sentence2011State v. Goodspeed, Montgomery App. No. 19979, 2004-Ohio-1819 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. McEndree, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2005)
neutral
1 sentence2006State v. McEndree, supra at ¶ 33 ; State v. Cammon, supra at ¶ 29. {¶ 22} Since Douglas' investigatory stop of Mapson "did not rise to the level of a custodial arrest," his question of whether Mapson had "anything" on his person did not "trigger the requirement of Miranda warnings." Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Oregon v. Elstad
green
1 sentence1999New York v. Quarles (1984), 467 U.S. 649 , 654 ; Oregon v. Elstad (1985), 470 U.S. 298 , 306 , fn. 1. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1997Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 . 1997Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
United States v. Herman E. Lane
green
1 sentence1996United States v. Lane (6th Cir., 1990), 909 F.2d 895 ; [Wells ].” The questioning regarding possession of drugs was simply on-scene investigative questioning, which in no way triggered the requirement of Miranda warnings. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.