15 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2021 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Yarborough v. Alvaradogreen2 sentences2021The finding of custody is essential because the preinterrogation warnings required by Miranda are intended to assure that any inculpatory statement made by a defendant is not simply the product of “ ‘the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.’ ” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 661 (2004) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458 ). ¶ 57 The determination of whether a defendant is “in custody” for Miranda purposes involves “ ‘[t]wo discrete inquiries ***: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have 2021The finding of custody is essential because the preinterrogation warnings required by Miranda are intended to assure that any inculpatory statement made by a defendant is not simply the product of “ ‘the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.’ ” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 661 (2004) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458 ). ¶ 57 The determination of whether a defendant is “in custody” for Miranda purposes involves “ ‘[t]wo discrete inquiries ***: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have | 9 | 10 |
People v. Slatergreen2 sentences2021“The finding of custody is essential, as the preinterrogation warnings required by Miranda are intended to assure that any inculpatory statement made by a defendant is not simply the product of the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Slater, 228 Ill. 2d at 149 - 50. 2020“The finding of custody is essential, as the preinterrogation warnings required by Miranda are intended to assure that any inculpatory statement made by a defendant is not simply the product of ‘the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.’ ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Slater, 228 Ill. 2d 137, 149 (2008) (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 661 (2004)). | 3 | 10 |
People v. Braggsgreen2 sentences2021The finding of custody is essential because the preinterrogation warnings required by Miranda are intended to assure that any inculpatory statement made by a defendant is not simply the product of “ ‘the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.’ ” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 661 (2004) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458 ). ¶ 57 The determination of whether a defendant is “in custody” for Miranda purposes involves “ ‘[t]wo discrete inquiries ***: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have 2021The finding of custody is essential because the preinterrogation warnings required by Miranda are intended to assure that any inculpatory statement made by a defendant is not simply the product of “ ‘the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.’ ” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 661 (2004) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458 ). ¶ 57 The determination of whether a defendant is “in custody” for Miranda purposes involves “ ‘[t]wo discrete inquiries ***: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have | 3 | 3 |
Thompson v. Keohanegreen2 sentences2021The finding of custody is essential because the preinterrogation warnings required by Miranda are intended to assure that any inculpatory statement made by a defendant is not simply the product of “ ‘the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.’ ” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 661 (2004) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458 ). ¶ 57 The determination of whether a defendant is “in custody” for Miranda purposes involves “ ‘[t]wo discrete inquiries ***: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have 2021The finding of custody is essential because the preinterrogation warnings required by Miranda are intended to assure that any inculpatory statement made by a defendant is not simply the product of “ ‘the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.’ ” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 661 (2004) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458 ). ¶ 57 The determination of whether a defendant is “in custody” for Miranda purposes involves “ ‘[t]wo discrete inquiries ***: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have | 3 | 3 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2021The finding of custody is essential because the preinterrogation warnings required by Miranda are intended to assure that any inculpatory statement made by a defendant is not simply the product of “ ‘the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.’ ” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 661 (2004) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458 ). ¶ 57 The determination of whether a defendant is “in custody” for Miranda purposes involves “ ‘[t]wo discrete inquiries ***: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have 2021The finding of custody is essential because the preinterrogation warnings required by Miranda are intended to assure that any inculpatory statement made by a defendant is not simply the product of “ ‘the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.’ ” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 661 (2004) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458 ). ¶ 57 The determination of whether a defendant is “in custody” for Miranda purposes involves “ ‘[t]wo discrete inquiries ***: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have | 2 | 11 |
People v. Melockgreen2 sentences2011See People v. Slater, 228 Ill.2d 137, 149 , 319 Ill.Dec. 862 , 886 *1258 N.E.2d 986, 994 (2008) ("The finding of custody is essential, as the preinterrogation warnings required by Miranda are intended to assure that any inculpatory statement made by a defendant is not simply the product of the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). ¶ 18 Relevant factors to consider when determining whether an interrogation was custodial include "(1) the time and place of the confrontation; (2) the number of police officers present; (3) the presence or absence of f 2011See People v. Slater, 228 Ill.2d 137, 149 , 319 Ill.Dec. 862 , 886 *1258 N.E.2d 986, 994 (2008) ("The finding of custody is essential, as the preinterrogation warnings required by Miranda are intended to assure that any inculpatory statement made by a defendant is not simply the product of the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). ¶ 18 Relevant factors to consider when determining whether an interrogation was custodial include "(1) the time and place of the confrontation; (2) the number of police officers present; (3) the presence or absence of f | 2 | 2 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2011Further considerations include "the location, length, mood and mode of the interrogation; * * * the intentions of the officers; and the extent of knowledge of the officers and the focus of their investigation." People v. Brown, 136 Ill.2d 116, 124-25 , 143 Ill.Dec. 281 , 554 N.E.2d 216, 220 (1990). 2011Further considerations include "the location, length, mood and mode of the interrogation; * * * the intentions of the officers; and the extent of knowledge of the officers and the focus of their investigation." People v. Brown, 136 Ill.2d 116, 124-25 , 143 Ill.Dec. 281 , 554 N.E.2d 216, 220 (1990). | 2 | 2 |
New York v. Quarlesgreen1 sentence2021Accordingly, Miranda is not triggered when officers conduct “general investigatory on-the- scene questioning as to the facts surrounding a crime.” People v. Hannah, 2013 IL App (1st) 111660, ¶ 42 ; see also Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477-78 (differentiating between general questioning and the “compelling atmosphere inherent in the process of in-custody interrogation”). ¶ 27 Here, even assuming that defendant was in custody when he made his initial statement to Jeffrey, the questioning falls under the public safety exception to Miranda established in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984). ¶ 28 In | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hannah
green
2 sentences2021Accordingly, Miranda is not triggered when officers conduct “general investigatory on-the- scene questioning as to the facts surrounding a crime.” People v. Hannah, 2013 IL App (1st) 111660, ¶ 42 ; see also Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477-78 (differentiating between general questioning and the “compelling atmosphere inherent in the process of in-custody interrogation”). ¶ 27 Here, even assuming that defendant was in custody when he made his initial statement to Jeffrey, the questioning falls under the public safety exception to Miranda established in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984). ¶ 28 In 2020“Accordingly, it is well recognized that Miranda is not triggered, and the admonishments are not required, when police conduct general investigatory on-the-scene questioning as to the facts surrounding a crime.” People v. Hannah, 2013 IL App (1st) 111660, ¶ 42 . ¶ 21 When examining the circumstances of an interrogation to determine whether statements were made in a custodial setting, thereby triggering Miranda, our supreme court has found a number of factors to be considered: (1) the location, time, length, mood, and mode of the questioning; (2) the number of police officers present during the | 2 | 2020–2021 |
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.