11 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oregon v. Elstadgreen2 sentences2026"The failure to administer Miranda warnings prior to a custodial interrogation 'creates a presumption of compulsion,' and any unwarned statements must be suppressed—even when they 'are otherwise voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.'" State v. Tiwana, 256 N.J. 33 , 41 (2023) (quoting Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 307 (1985)). 2026"The failure to administer Miranda warnings prior to a custodial interrogation 'creates a presumption of compulsion,' and any unwarned statements must be suppressed -- even when they 'are otherwise voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.'" Ibid. (quoting Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 307 (1985)). | 6 | 7 |
State v. O'NEILLgreen2 sentences2023The failure to administer Miranda warnings prior to a custodial interrogation “creates a presumption of compulsion,” and any unwarned statements must be suppressed -- even when they “are otherwise voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.” Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 307 (1985); see also State v. O’Neill, 193 N.J. 148, 170 (2007). 10 Custodial interrogation is defined as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 . 2015Hence, if warnings were required but not given, the unwarned statements must be suppressed — even when they “are otherwise voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.” Ibid.; see also State v. O’Neill, 193 N.J. 148, 170 , 936 A.2d 438 (2007); State v. O’Neal, 190 N.J. 601, 616 , 921 A.2d 1079 (2007). | 2 | 2 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2023The failure to administer Miranda warnings prior to a custodial interrogation “creates a presumption of compulsion,” and any unwarned statements must be suppressed -- even when they “are otherwise voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.” Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 307 (1985); see also State v. O’Neill, 193 N.J. 148, 170 (2007). 10 Custodial interrogation is defined as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 . 2019"Custodial interrogation" means "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise A-3623-16T2 13 deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Wintgreen1 sentence2026A defendant's Miranda rights are "triggered only when a person is in custody and subject to questioning by law enforcement." State v. Ahmad, 246 N.J. 592 , 610 (2021) (citing State v. Wint, 236 N.J. 174, 193 (2018)). "'Custody' for the purposes of Miranda requires a 'formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.'" State v. Erazo, 254 A-1176-22 11 N.J. 277 , 298 (2023) (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983)). | 1 | 1 |
California v. Behelergreen1 sentence2026A defendant's Miranda rights are "triggered only when a person is in custody and subject to questioning by law enforcement." State v. Ahmad, 246 N.J. 592 , 610 (2021) (citing State v. Wint, 236 N.J. 174, 193 (2018)). "'Custody' for the purposes of Miranda requires a 'formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.'" State v. Erazo, 254 A-1176-22 11 N.J. 277 , 298 (2023) (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. S.S.
green
1 sentence2024When reviewing a motion to suppress statements, courts generally "defer to the factual findings of the trial court if those findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." State v. Sims, 250 N.J. 189 , 210 (2022) (citing S.S., 229 N.J. at 374 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Kareem T. Tillery (079832) (Essex County and Statewide)
green
1 sentence2022Raynor telling defendant immediately prior to administering the warnings that he had to provide them only because they were in a police station clearly "minimize[d] the significance of" defendant's waiver, Tillery, 238 N.J. at 316 ; L.H., 239 N.J. at 43-46, especially when considering defendant's age, lack of a high school education, minimal lack of experience with the criminal justice system, and his mental health issues, as well as the many hours he already spent secure inside the police station. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Carl Hreha (070222)
green
1 sentence2019"The failure to administer Miranda warnings prior to custodial interrogation 'creates a presumption of compulsion.' Hence, if warnings were required but not given, the unwarned statements must be suppressed – even when they 'are otherwise voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.'" Ibid. (quoting Elstad, 47 U.S. at 307). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In the Matter of Fellows
green
1 sentence2015Hence, if warnings were required but not given, the unwarned statements must be suppressed — even when they “are otherwise voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.” Ibid.; see also State v. O’Neill, 193 N.J. 148, 170 , 936 A.2d 438 (2007); State v. O’Neal, 190 N.J. 601, 616 , 921 A.2d 1079 (2007). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. O'NEAL
green
1 sentence2015Hence, if warnings were required but not given, the unwarned statements must be suppressed — even when they “are otherwise voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.” Ibid.; see also State v. O’Neill, 193 N.J. 148, 170 , 936 A.2d 438 (2007); State v. O’Neal, 190 N.J. 601, 616 , 921 A.2d 1079 (2007). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Hartley
green
2 sentences2003There is "a qualitative difference between a failure to administer Miranda warnings in the first place, and a failure to honor, after they have been asserted, the constitutional rights that those warnings are designed to secure." State v. Hartley, 103 N.J. 252, 272 , 511 A. 2d 80 (1986). 2003There is "a qualitative difference between a failure to administer Miranda warnings in the first place, and a failure to honor, after they have been asserted, the constitutional rights that those warnings are designed to secure." State v. Hartley, 103 N.J. 252, 272 , 511 A. 2d 80 (1986). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.