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.
8 California opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Manisgreen2 sentences1978(In re James M. (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 133, 137 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 902 ]; People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 653, 663-669 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 423 ].) Once the parole officer determined that a check should be made to discover to whom the *392 gun belonged he immediately took the minor to the police station and questioned him no more concerning his possession of the gun. 1978(In re James M. (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 133, 137 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 902 ]; People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 653, 663-669 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 423 ].) Once the parole officer determined that a check should be made to discover to whom the *392 gun belonged he immediately took the minor to the police station and questioned him no more concerning his possession of the gun. | 3 | 3 |
Mathis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1978(Mathis v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 1, 4-5 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 381, 384-385 , 88 S.Ct. 1503 ]; People v. Woodberry (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 351,354-357 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 165 ].) “We recognize that a detention not amounting to an arrest does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings. 1978(Mathis v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 1, 4-5 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 381, 384-385 , 88 S.Ct. 1503 ]; People v. Woodberry (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 351,354-357 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 165 ].) “We recognize that a detention not amounting to an arrest does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Woodberrygreen2 sentences1978(Mathis v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 1, 4-5 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 381, 384-385 , 88 S.Ct. 1503 ]; People v. Woodberry (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 351,354-357 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 165 ].) “We recognize that a detention not amounting to an arrest does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings. 1978(Mathis v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 1, 4-5 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 381, 384-385 , 88 S.Ct. 1503 ]; People v. Woodberry (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 351,354-357 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 165 ].) “We recognize that a detention not amounting to an arrest does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings. | 2 | 2 |
People v. PILSTERgreen1 sentence2022(In re Kenneth S. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 54, 65 .) “The mere fact that an investigation has focused on a suspect does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings in noncustodial settings.” (Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) 465 U.S. 420, 431 .) As a panel of this court observed, the issue “‘is not whether a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave, but rather whether such a person would believe he was in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest.’” (Pilster, 15 supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 1403, fn. 1 .) As noted in Berkemer, few motorists would feel at liberty “to leav | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Munizgreen1 sentence2013(Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990) 496 U.S. 582, 601-602 (plur. opn. of Brennan, J.); People v. Gomez (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 609, 628-629 .) This type of routine gathering of background biographical information has been held to include questions about gang affiliation where such questions are asked for a legitimate administrative purpose, such as to ensure members of rival gangs are not placed together in jail cells. ( Gomez, supra, at pp. 630-635 ; U.S. v. Washington (9th Cir. 2006) 462 F.3d 1124, 1132-1133 .) The questions here were neither routine nor asked for administrative or safety purposes. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Herdangreen2 sentences1986One well-recognized circumstance tending to show custody, which we shall apply here, is the degree of physical restraint used by police officers to detain a citizen: “If the police officer uses physical restraint on the suspect [citation] or draws a gun [citation] it is more likely to be deemed *229 custodial than if the questioning occurs without physical restraint or opportunity to restrain. [Citation.]” (People v. Herdan (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 300, 307, fn. 11 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 641 ].) It goes without saying that the display of a weapon by police officers plainly conveys to a reasonable citizen 1986One well-recognized circumstance tending to show custody, which we shall apply here, is the degree of physical restraint used by police officers to detain a citizen: “If the police officer uses physical restraint on the suspect [citation] or draws a gun [citation] it is more likely to be deemed *229 custodial than if the questioning occurs without physical restraint or opportunity to restrain. [Citation.]” (People v. Herdan (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 300, 307, fn. 11 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 641 ].) It goes without saying that the display of a weapon by police officers plainly conveys to a reasonable citizen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wheelergreen2 sentences1979Until such time as the police have probable cause to make an accusation, the relationship between suspect and police remains that of citizen and peace officer rather than accused and accuser.” (Italics added.) The holding of Manis , that a detention not amounting to an arrest does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings, finds support not only in California cases (In re Richard T. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 382, 391 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 856 ]; People v. Wheeler (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 898, 903 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 205 ]; People v. Herrera (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 629, 636-637 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 802 ]), but also in Mir 1979Until such time as the police have probable cause to make an accusation, the relationship between suspect and police remains that of citizen and peace officer rather than accused and accuser.” (Italics added.) The holding of Manis , that a detention not amounting to an arrest does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings, finds support not only in California cases (In re Richard T. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 382, 391 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 856 ]; People v. Wheeler (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 898, 903 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 205 ]; People v. Herrera (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 629, 636-637 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 802 ]), but also in Mir | 1 | 1 |
People v. Herreragreen2 sentences1979Until such time as the police have probable cause to make an accusation, the relationship between suspect and police remains that of citizen and peace officer rather than accused and accuser.” (Italics added.) The holding of Manis , that a detention not amounting to an arrest does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings, finds support not only in California cases (In re Richard T. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 382, 391 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 856 ]; People v. Wheeler (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 898, 903 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 205 ]; People v. Herrera (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 629, 636-637 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 802 ]), but also in Mir 1979Until such time as the police have probable cause to make an accusation, the relationship between suspect and police remains that of citizen and peace officer rather than accused and accuser.” (Italics added.) The holding of Manis , that a detention not amounting to an arrest does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings, finds support not only in California cases (In re Richard T. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 382, 391 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 856 ]; People v. Wheeler (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 898, 903 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 205 ]; People v. Herrera (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 629, 636-637 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 802 ]), but also in Mir | 1 | 1 |
People v. Richard T.green2 sentences1979Until such time as the police have probable cause to make an accusation, the relationship between suspect and police remains that of citizen and peace officer rather than accused and accuser.” (Italics added.) The holding of Manis , that a detention not amounting to an arrest does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings, finds support not only in California cases (In re Richard T. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 382, 391 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 856 ]; People v. Wheeler (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 898, 903 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 205 ]; People v. Herrera (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 629, 636-637 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 802 ]), but also in Mir 1979Until such time as the police have probable cause to make an accusation, the relationship between suspect and police remains that of citizen and peace officer rather than accused and accuser.” (Italics added.) The holding of Manis , that a detention not amounting to an arrest does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings, finds support not only in California cases (In re Richard T. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 382, 391 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 856 ]; People v. Wheeler (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 898, 903 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 205 ]; People v. Herrera (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 629, 636-637 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 802 ]), but also in Mir | 1 | 1 |
In Re James M.green2 sentences1978(In re James M. (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 133, 137 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 902 ]; People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 653, 663-669 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 423 ].) Once the parole officer determined that a check should be made to discover to whom the *392 gun belonged he immediately took the minor to the police station and questioned him no more concerning his possession of the gun. 1978(In re James M. (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 133, 137 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 902 ]; People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 653, 663-669 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 423 ].) Once the parole officer determined that a check should be made to discover to whom the *392 gun belonged he immediately took the minor to the police station and questioned him no more concerning his possession of the gun. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Howes v. Fields
green
1 sentence2022(Berkemer, supra, 468 U.S. at p. 436 , fn. omitted.) Restriction on a person’s “freedom of action” is not enough (id. at p. 436); there must be a custodial environment that “presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda.” (Howes v. Fields (2012) 565 U.S. 499, 509 .) Here, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion the contact began as something less than a traffic stop, where Pham did not pull Ryan over and their conversation appeared consensual. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Minnesota v. Murphy
green
1 sentence2022(In re Kenneth S. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 54, 65 .) “The mere fact that an investigation has focused on a suspect does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings in noncustodial settings.” (Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) 465 U.S. 420, 431 .) As a panel of this court observed, the issue “‘is not whether a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave, but rather whether such a person would believe he was in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest.’” (Pilster, 15 supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 1403, fn. 1 .) As noted in Berkemer, few motorists would feel at liberty “to leav | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Berkemer v. McCarty
green
1 sentence2022(Berkemer, supra, 468 U.S. at p. 436 , fn. omitted.) Restriction on a person’s “freedom of action” is not enough (id. at p. 436); there must be a custodial environment that “presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda.” (Howes v. Fields (2012) 565 U.S. 499, 509 .) Here, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion the contact began as something less than a traffic stop, where Pham did not pull Ryan over and their conversation appeared consensual. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Kenneth S.
green
1 sentence2022(In re Kenneth S. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 54, 65 .) “The mere fact that an investigation has focused on a suspect does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings in noncustodial settings.” (Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) 465 U.S. 420, 431 .) As a panel of this court observed, the issue “‘is not whether a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave, but rather whether such a person would believe he was in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest.’” (Pilster, 15 supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 1403, fn. 1 .) As noted in Berkemer, few motorists would feel at liberty “to leav | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re William
green
1 sentence2015Unlawful Detention In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we “ ‘review[] the evidence in a light favorable to the trial court’s ruling. [Citation.] We must uphold those express or implied findings of fact by the trial court which are supported by substantial evidence and independently determine whether the facts support the court’s legal conclusions.’ ” (In re William V. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1464 , 1468.) M.B. contends that, when the officers contacted her and H.F. in the park and later on a nearby street, they unlawfully detained her, and both her initial admission to Officer Kaiser | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Gomez
green
2 sentences2013(Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990) 496 U.S. 582, 601-602 (plur. opn. of Brennan, J.); People v. Gomez (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 609, 628-629 .) This type of routine gathering of background biographical information has been held to include questions about gang affiliation where such questions are asked for a legitimate administrative purpose, such as to ensure members of rival gangs are not placed together in jail cells. ( Gomez, supra, at pp. 630-635 ; U.S. v. Washington (9th Cir. 2006) 462 F.3d 1124, 1132-1133 .) The questions here were neither routine nor asked for administrative or safety purposes. 2013(Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990) 496 U.S. 582, 601-602 (plur. opn. of Brennan, J.); People v. Gomez (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 609, 628-629 .) This type of routine gathering of background biographical information has been held to include questions about gang affiliation where such questions are asked for a legitimate administrative purpose, such as to ensure members of rival gangs are not placed together in jail cells. ( Gomez, supra, at pp. 630-635 ; U.S. v. Washington (9th Cir. 2006) 462 F.3d 1124, 1132-1133 .) The questions here were neither routine nor asked for administrative or safety purposes. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
United States v. Eric Washington, United States of America v. Eric Washington
green
1 sentence2013(Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990) 496 U.S. 582, 601-602 (plur. opn. of Brennan, J.); People v. Gomez (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 609, 628-629 .) This type of routine gathering of background biographical information has been held to include questions about gang affiliation where such questions are asked for a legitimate administrative purpose, such as to ensure members of rival gangs are not placed together in jail cells. ( Gomez, supra, at pp. 630-635 ; U.S. v. Washington (9th Cir. 2006) 462 F.3d 1124, 1132-1133 .) The questions here were neither routine nor asked for administrative or safety purposes. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.