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.
7 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Minnesota v. Murphygreen2 sentences1991The case at bar is on all fours with Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 435 , 104 S.Ct. 1136, 1146 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984), in which the Supreme Court held that “a State may require a probationer to appear and discuss matters that affect his probationary status” and that “such a requirement, without more, does not give rise to a self-executing [Fifth Amendment] privilege.” Murphy specifically addressed and flatly rejected defendant’s present argument that the probation officer’s question should be viewed as an attempt to elicit incriminating evidence from him, especially since the officer knew 1991The case at bar is on all fours with Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 435 , 104 S.Ct. 1136, 1146 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984), in which the Supreme Court held that “a State may require a probationer to appear and discuss matters that affect his probationary status” and that “such a requirement, without more, does not give rise to a self-executing [Fifth Amendment] privilege.” Murphy specifically addressed and flatly rejected defendant’s present argument that the probation officer’s question should be viewed as an attempt to elicit incriminating evidence from him, especially since the officer knew | 1 | 2 |
State v. WARRIORgreen2 sentences2013See State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , 277 P.3d 1111, 1126 (2012) (“[T]he fact [that] a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings.”). 2013See State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , 277 P.3d 1111, 1126 (2012) (“[T]he fact [that] a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings.”). | 1 | 1 |
Mathis v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2003The United States Supreme Court, in Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1968), stated that “nothing in the Miranda opinion...calls for the curtailment of the warnings to be given persons under interrogation by officers based on the reason why the person is in custody.” The fact that a person is incarcerated for a crime, different from one police are presently investigating, does not remove the need for Miranda warnings. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bleylgreen1 sentence1984See State v. Bleyl, 435 A.2d 1349, 1357-58 (Me. 1981); State v. Valentine, 443 A.2d 573, 577 (Me.1982). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Valentinegreen1 sentence1984See State v. Bleyl, 435 A.2d 1349, 1357-58 (Me. 1981); State v. Valentine, 443 A.2d 573, 577 (Me.1982). | 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. Carisio
green
1 sentence1991Citing State v. Carisio, 552 A.2d 23 (Me.1988), defendant also argues that his statement to the probation officer was not voluntary under article I, section 6, of the Maine Constitution. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Knights
green
1 sentence1989Id. (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Thurlow
green
1 sentence1981The question of the appropriate burden of proof to be applied to findings of the preliminary factors triggering the need for Miranda warnings is one never decided by this Court and one specifically left open in our recent opinion in State v. Thurlow, Me., 434 A.2d 1 (1981). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.