8 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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. Waltongreen2 sentences2002Id. at 78-79 . 2002Id. at 78-79. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 458 (Colo.2002); People v. Taylor, 41 P.3d 681, 689-98 (Colo.2002); People v. Polander, 41 P.3d 698, 705 (Colo.2001). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Polandergreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 458 (Colo.2002); People v. Taylor, 41 P.3d 681, 689-98 (Colo.2002); People v. Polander, 41 P.3d 698, 705 (Colo.2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estelle v. Smith
green
2 sentences2025Id. ¶41 As Densmore contends, Estelle involved statements made to a person other than a law enforcement officer without the benefit of Miranda warnings, and the same is true here. 2025Id. ¶41 As Densmore contends, Estelle involved statements made to a person other than a law enforcement officer without the benefit of Miranda warnings , and the same is true here. | 3 | 2025–2025 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2001However, since Defendant Polander was in custody within the meaning of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), without the benefit of Miranda warnings, when she initially admitted ownership of the drugs found in the vehicle, the trial court's order suppressing that statement is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. 2001However, since Defendant Polander was in custody within the meaning of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), without the benefit of Miranda warnings, when she initially admitted ownership of the drugs found in the vehicle, the trial court's order suppressing that statement is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. | 2 | 1989–2001 |
People v. Matheny
green
1 sentence2019The only reasonable question before the court would seem to be when along this continuum of detention the arrest occurred, and for purposes of any statements the defendant made without the benefit of Miranda warnings, at precisely what point in that continuum his liberty had been infringed on to a degree associated with arrest rather than a mere investigative stop. ¶43 It is not entirely clear to me what the majority intends by noting that the district court did not rest its ruling solely on the length of the detention both because the question whether the detention constituted a stop or an ar | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.