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.
9 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2020Finding that the statements were obtained in violation of the protections provided for in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the trial court suppressed the statements. 2007Bowman filed a pretrial motion to suppress all of his inculpatory statements on the grounds the statements were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as protected under the procedural safeguards of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478 (1966). | 1 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Whitegreen1 sentence2019“When considering whether to affirm the denial of a pretrial suppression motion, an appellate court reviews not only the evidence presented at the pretrial hearing but also the evidence later presented at trial.” Tirado v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 15 , 24-25 (2018) (quoting Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 414 (2017)). | 1 | 1 |
Rhode Island v. Innisgreen1 sentence2007More specifically, Bowman argues that his pre-Miranda warning statements were the product of a custodial police interrogation, as defined in Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-01 (1980), and that his post-Miranda warning statements were the product of a deliberate two-step interrogation strategy designed to circumvent Miranda, a tactic proscribed in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (plurality opinion). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wong Sun v. United States
green
2 sentences1998Because Ford was not warned of his Miranda rights prior to the questioning that led to his incriminating statements, I would hold that the statements were obtained in violation of Ford’s Fifth Amendment rights and that all the evidence derived from his statements was tainted under the rule of Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). 1998Because Ford was not warned of his Miranda rights prior to the questioning that led to his incriminating statements, I would hold that the statements were obtained in violation of Ford’s Fifth Amendment rights and that all the evidence derived from his statements was tainted under the rule of Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
1 sentence2011Before trial, Floyd moved to suppress his May 3, 2010 statements to Garrett following the statement, “I’m in trouble, aren’t I?” on the ground that the statements were obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment. 2 After a hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court found that Floyd was lawfully temporarily detained under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Missouri v. Seibert
green
1 sentence2007More specifically, Bowman argues that his pre-Miranda warning statements were the product of a custodial police interrogation, as defined in Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-01 (1980), and that his post-Miranda warning statements were the product of a deliberate two-step interrogation strategy designed to circumvent Miranda, a tactic proscribed in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (plurality opinion). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Edwards v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2006By order entered January 17,2006, the statements made by the defendant to two investigators of the Loudoun County Sheriffs Office on July 6, 2005, were suppressed because the statements were obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), and its progeny, especially, Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Minnick v. Mississippi
green
1 sentence2006By order entered January 17,2006, the statements made by the defendant to two investigators of the Loudoun County Sheriffs Office on July 6, 2005, were suppressed because the statements were obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), and its progeny, especially, Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.