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.
6 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2003 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
WB v. Stategreen2 sentences2003"Therefore, the necessity for Miranda warnings did not exist." Id. at 885. 2003“Therefore, the necessity for Miranda warnings did not exist.” Id. at 885. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Heathgreen1 sentence1978See State v. Heath, 343 So.2d 13 (Fla.1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Drolshagen
green
2 sentences1991The problem, in the case at bar, is that a sheriff's deputy was also present during the interrogation. [2] We have not been cited to any Florida law on what difference the mere presence of a police officer makes, but we agree with the rationale of a South Carolina decision which held that if the policeman stands mute and does not participate, his mere presence does not "render it a custodial interrogation." In re Drolshagen, 280 S.C. 84 , 310 S.E.2d 927 (1984). 1991The problem, in the case at bar, is that a sheriff's deputy was also present during the interrogation. [2] We have not been cited to any Florida law on what difference the mere presence of a police officer makes, but we agree with the rationale of a South Carolina decision which held that if the policeman stands mute and does not participate, his mere presence does not "render it a custodial interrogation." In re Drolshagen, 280 S.C. 84 , 310 S.E.2d 927 (1984). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Lee v. State
green
1 sentence1981When the pre-existing custody status exists, even express permission to leave is “an illusory freedom, within the context of [the defendant’s] imprisonment,” Young v. State, supra. See also Lee v. State, 362 So.2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Cole
green
2 sentences1981Cir.1975), and State v. Cole, 252 Or. 146 , 448 P.2d 523 (1968) (although defendant in custody on unrelated offense, defendant not suspected of commission of crime about which being interrogated). [2] The necessity for Miranda warnings which arises from this preexisting custody is not obviated by evidence, as in Young, that the defendant was not suddenly thrust into a foreign or hostile environment, that the interrogation was conducted in other than a jail cell, that no promises or threats were made to the defendant, or even that the defendant was told that he could get up and leave the room a 1981Cir.1975), and State v. Cole, 252 Or. 146 , 448 P.2d 523 (1968) (although defendant in custody on unrelated offense, defendant not suspected of commission of crime about which being interrogated). [2] The necessity for Miranda warnings which arises from this preexisting custody is not obviated by evidence, as in Young, that the defendant was not suddenly thrust into a foreign or hostile environment, that the interrogation was conducted in other than a jail cell, that no promises or threats were made to the defendant, or even that the defendant was told that he could get up and leave the room a | 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.