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 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine 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. Michaudgreen2 sentences2018Michaud, 1998 ME 251 , ,r 4, 724 A.2d 1222 . 2007"To determine whether the defendant was restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest, a court must ascertain "whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have believed he was in police custody and constrained .to a degree associated with formal arrest." In the "reasonable person" analysis of whether a defendant is "in custody", a court may examine a number of objective factors, including: (1) the locale where the defendant made the statements; (2) the party who initiated the contact; (3) the existence or non-existence of probable cause to arrest (to the extent com | 1 | 4 |
Oregon v. Elstadgreen1 sentence2012The U.S. Supreme Court has continued to uphold the provisions of Miranda because of the inherent potential for abuse, and the "[f]ailure to administer Miranda warnings creates a presumption of compulsion." Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 307 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lewrygreen1 sentence2009Michaud, 1998 ME 251 , 'JI 4, 724 A.2d at 1226 . 5 v. Lewry, 550 A.2d 64, 65 (Me. 1988); see also Berkeiner v. McCarty, 468 U.s. 420, 423 (1984) (defendant questioned outside his vehicle on side of road). | 1 | 1 |
Stansbury v. Californiagreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., State v. Gardner, 509 A.2d 1160 , 1163 n. 3 (Me.1986); State v. Thibodeau, 496 A.2d 635, 639 (Me.1985); Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thibodeaugreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., State v. Gardner, 509 A.2d 1160 , 1163 n. 3 (Me.1986); State v. Thibodeau, 496 A.2d 635, 639 (Me.1985); Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gardnergreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., State v. Gardner, 509 A.2d 1160 , 1163 n. 3 (Me.1986); State v. Thibodeau, 496 A.2d 635, 639 (Me.1985); Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Holloway
green
2 sentences2012Maine law additionally provides that the factors derived in Gardner-the "reasonable person" analysis of a number of objective factors-" are not to be viewed in isolation, but rather in their totality." Holloway, 2000 ME 172 , ~ 19, 760 A.2d 223 . 2012Maine law additionally provides that the factors derived in Gardner-the "reasonable person" analysis of a number of objective factors-" are not to be viewed in isolation, but rather in their totality." Holloway, 2000 ME 172 , ~ 19, 760 A.2d 223 . | 2 | 2008–2012 |
State v. Myers
green
1 sentence2017State v. Myers, 345 A.2d 500 (Me. 1975). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Higgins
green
2 sentences2008State v. Higgins, 2002 ME 77, ¶ 13 , 796 A.2d 50, 54-55 . 2008State v. Higgins, 2002 ME 77, ¶ 13 , 796 A.2d 50, 54-55 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Dion
green
1 sentence2007"To determine whether the defendant was restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest, a court must ascertain "whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have believed he was in police custody and constrained .to a degree associated with formal arrest." In the "reasonable person" analysis of whether a defendant is "in custody", a court may examine a number of objective factors, including: (1) the locale where the defendant made the statements; (2) the party who initiated the contact; (3) the existence or non-existence of probable cause to arrest (to the extent com | 1 | 2007–2007 |