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 1 courts 2004–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Stroziergreen2 sentences2017Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. II, p. 265. {¶ 42} “The right to Miranda warnings is grounded in the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against compelled self-incrimination.” State v. Strozier, 172 Ohio App.3d 780 , 2007-Ohio-4575 , 876 N.E.2d 1304, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.), citing Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 420 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). 2017Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. II, p. 265. {¶ 42} “The right to Miranda warnings is grounded in the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against compelled self-incrimination.” State v. Strozier, 172 Ohio App.3d 780 , 2007-Ohio-4575 , 876 N.E.2d 1304, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.), citing Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 420 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Brockergreen2 sentences2026“Thus, ‘most traffic stops and accompanying investigatory questioning do not constitute custodial interrogations warranting the right to Miranda warnings.’” Id., quoting State v. Brocker, 2015-Ohio-3412, ¶ 17 (11th Dist.). 2017Portage No. 2014-P- 0070, 2015-Ohio-3412, ¶17 (“most traffic stops and accompanying investigatory questioning do not constitute custodial interrogations warranting the right to Miranda warnings.”) 6 {¶18} In this case, Trooper Lamm was justified in stopping the driver after observing several traffic violations. | 2 | 3 |
In re R.L.green2 sentences2026“However, during a traffic or investigative stop circumstances may change and render an individual ‘in custody’ for practical purposes and, thus, ‘“entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda.”’” Id., quoting Farris at ¶ 13 , quoting Berkemer at 440 . {¶17} “‘Separate from the issue of compliance with Miranda in custodial interrogations is the voluntariness of the pretrial statement.’” In re J.S. at ¶ 14, quoting In re R.L., 2014-Ohio-5065, ¶ 21 (2d Dist.). “‘Even where Miranda warnings are not required, “a confession may [still] be involuntary [and excludable] if on the 2026“However, during a traffic or investigative stop circumstances may change and render an individual ‘in custody’ for practical purposes and, thus, ‘“entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda.”’” Id., quoting Farris at ¶ 13 , quoting Berkemer at 440 . {¶17} “‘Separate from the issue of compliance with Miranda in custodial interrogations is the voluntariness of the pretrial statement.’” In re J.S. at ¶ 14, quoting In re R.L., 2014-Ohio-5065, ¶ 21 (2d Dist.). “‘Even where Miranda warnings are not required, “a confession may [still] be involuntary [and excludable] if on the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moran v. Burbine
green
2 sentences2017Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. II, p. 265. {¶ 42} “The right to Miranda warnings is grounded in the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against compelled self-incrimination.” State v. Strozier, 172 Ohio App.3d 780 , 2007-Ohio-4575 , 876 N.E.2d 1304, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.), citing Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 420 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). 2017Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. II, p. 265. {¶ 42} “The right to Miranda warnings is grounded in the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against compelled self-incrimination.” State v. Strozier, 172 Ohio App.3d 780 , 2007-Ohio-4575 , 876 N.E.2d 1304, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.), citing Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 420 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). | 11 | 2004–2017 |
State v. Biros
green
2 sentences2013Specifically, Engle argues that Miranda warnings were required because he was in custody and undergoing interrogation when the officer asked if he had anything on him. {¶ 23} “The right to Miranda warnings is grounded in the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against compelled self-incrimination. * * * It is well established, however, that the police are not required to administer Miranda warnings to every individual they question.” State v. Strozier, 172 Ohio App.3d 780 , 2007-Ohio-4575 , 876 N.E.2d 1304, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.), citing Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 420 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 2013Specifically, Engle argues that Miranda warnings were required because he was in custody and undergoing interrogation when the officer asked if he had anything on him. {¶ 23} “The right to Miranda warnings is grounded in the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against compelled self-incrimination. * * * It is well established, however, that the police are not required to administer Miranda warnings to every individual they question.” State v. Strozier, 172 Ohio App.3d 780 , 2007-Ohio-4575 , 876 N.E.2d 1304, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.), citing Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 420 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 | 2 | 2013–2017 |
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty.
green
2 sentences2014Ct. of Nev., Humbolt Cty., 542 U.S. 177, 190 , 124 S.Ct. 2451 , 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004), quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20 , 121 S.Ct. 1252 , 149 L.E.2d 158 (2001). {¶ 15} The right to Miranda warnings are grounded in the Fifth Amendment’s 7 prohibition against compelled self-incrimination. 2014Ct. of Nev., Humbolt Cty., 542 U.S. 177, 190 , 124 S.Ct. 2451 , 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004), quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20 , 121 S.Ct. 1252 , 149 L.E.2d 158 (2001). {¶ 15} The right to Miranda warnings are grounded in the Fifth Amendment’s 7 prohibition against compelled self-incrimination. | 2 | 2007–2014 |
Kastigar v. United States
green
2 sentences2014Ct. of Nev., Humbolt Cty., 542 U.S. 177, 190 , 124 S.Ct. 2451 , 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004), quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20 , 121 S.Ct. 1252 , 149 L.E.2d 158 (2001). {¶ 15} The right to Miranda warnings are grounded in the Fifth Amendment’s 7 prohibition against compelled self-incrimination. 2014Ct. of Nev., Humbolt Cty., 542 U.S. 177, 190 , 124 S.Ct. 2451 , 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004), quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20 , 121 S.Ct. 1252 , 149 L.E.2d 158 (2001). {¶ 15} The right to Miranda warnings are grounded in the Fifth Amendment’s 7 prohibition against compelled self-incrimination. | 2 | 2007–2014 |
Ohio v. Reiner
green
2 sentences2014Ct. of Nev., Humbolt Cty., 542 U.S. 177, 190 , 124 S.Ct. 2451 , 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004), quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20 , 121 S.Ct. 1252 , 149 L.E.2d 158 (2001). {¶ 15} The right to Miranda warnings are grounded in the Fifth Amendment’s 7 prohibition against compelled self-incrimination. 2014Ct. of Nev., Humbolt Cty., 542 U.S. 177, 190 , 124 S.Ct. 2451 , 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004), quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20 , 121 S.Ct. 1252 , 149 L.E.2d 158 (2001). {¶ 15} The right to Miranda warnings are grounded in the Fifth Amendment’s 7 prohibition against compelled self-incrimination. | 2 | 2007–2014 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2008ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1 {¶ 39} "The trial court had neither competent nor credible evidence to determine that Mr. Tate was in Miranda Custody." *Page 15 {¶ 40} A suspect in police custody, "must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires." Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 . {¶ 41} The ri 2008ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1 {¶ 39} "The trial court had neither competent nor credible evidence to determine that Mr. Tate was in Miranda Custody." *Page 15 {¶ 40} A suspect in police custody, "must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires." Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 . {¶ 41} The ri | 2 | 2008–2013 |
Berkemer v. McCarty
green
1 sentence2026“Thus, ‘most traffic stops and accompanying investigatory questioning do not constitute custodial interrogations warranting the right to Miranda warnings.’” Id., quoting State v. Brocker, 2015-Ohio-3412, ¶ 17 (11th Dist.). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Casteel
green
2 sentences2022State v. Casteel, 2017-Ohio-8303 , 98 N.E.3d 889 (4th.Dist 2017), quoting State v. Brocker, 11th Dist. 2022State v. Casteel, 2017-Ohio-8303 , 98 N.E.3d 889 (4th.Dist 2017), quoting State v. Brocker, 11th Dist. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re GAULT
green
2 sentences2017In re Gault , 387 U.S. 1 , 55, 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). 2017In re Gault , 387 U.S. 1 , 55, 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Gaston
green
1 sentence2017State v. Gaston, 110 Ohio App.3d 835 (11th Dist.1996) (suspect not in custody when, upon being frisked and asked whether he had narcotics, admitted to having “weed” and a “rock”); see also Brocker, supra, (no custodial interrogation where trooper smelled alcohol and suspect removed from vehicle, placed into front seat of patrol car, and asked questions about alcohol consumption); State v. Campbell, 2nd Dist. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Cepec (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2017State v. Cepec , 149 Ohio St.3d 438 , 2016-Ohio-8076 , 75 N.E.3d 1185 , ¶ 35. {¶ 13} Due process protects juveniles with the result that they are afforded the right to Miranda warnings. 2017State v. Cepec , 149 Ohio St.3d 438 , 2016-Ohio-8076 , 75 N.E.3d 1185 , ¶ 35. {¶ 13} Due process protects juveniles with the result that they are afforded the right to Miranda warnings. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Roe
green
2 sentences2012State v. McGuire (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 390, 401 , 686 N.E.2d 1112 , citing State v. Roe (1989), 41 Ohio St.3d 18, 22 , 535 N.E.2d 1351 . 2012State v. McGuire (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 390, 401 , citing State v. Roe (1989), 41 Ohio St.3d 18, 22 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. McGuire
green
2 sentences2012State v. McGuire (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 390, 401 , 686 N.E.2d 1112 , citing State v. Roe (1989), 41 Ohio St.3d 18, 22 , 535 N.E.2d 1351 . 2012State v. McGuire (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 390, 401 , citing State v. Roe (1989), 41 Ohio St.3d 18, 22 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Hale
green
1 sentence2011A police officer is not required to provide Miranda warnings prior to asking “routine booking questions.” 13 State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2008-Ohio-3426 , ¶32. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.