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 2 courts 1970–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2017See id. 2017See id. | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Here, the misinformation, the coercive nature of confinement, and the repeated rounds of questioning combined to “coax an unwilling suspect to speak to police.” Id. at 70 (involving a situation where there was “no effort” to coax an unwilling subject); see also Davis v. State, 698 So.2d 1182, 1189 (Fla.1997) (stating that the purpose for reading Miranda warnings is “to ensure that the uninformed or uneducated in our society know they are guaranteed the rights encompassed in the warnings”). | 1 | 1 |
Henry v. Stategreen1 sentence2013The purpose of Miranda warnings is to prevent government officials from using “the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment,” Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529-30 , 107 S.Ct. 1931 , 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987), and to prevent “repeated rounds of questioning to undermine the will of the person being questioned.” Henry v. State, 574 So.2d 66, 70 (Fla.1991) (citing Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 102 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arizona v. Mauro
green
2 sentences2013The purpose of Miranda warnings is to prevent government officials from using “the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment,” Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529-30 , 107 S.Ct. 1931 , 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987), and to prevent “repeated rounds of questioning to undermine the will of the person being questioned.” Henry v. State, 574 So.2d 66, 70 (Fla.1991) (citing Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 102 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975)). 2013The purpose of Miranda warnings is to prevent government officials from using “the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment,” Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529-30 , 107 S.Ct. 1931 , 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987), and to prevent “repeated rounds of questioning to undermine the will of the person being questioned.” Henry v. State, 574 So.2d 66, 70 (Fla.1991) (citing Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 102 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975)). | 3 | 1995–2013 |
Michigan v. Mosley
green
2 sentences2013The purpose of Miranda warnings is to prevent government officials from using “the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment,” Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529-30 , 107 S.Ct. 1931 , 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987), and to prevent “repeated rounds of questioning to undermine the will of the person being questioned.” Henry v. State, 574 So.2d 66, 70 (Fla.1991) (citing Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 102 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975)). 2013The purpose of Miranda warnings is to prevent government officials from using “the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment,” Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529-30 , 107 S.Ct. 1931 , 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987), and to prevent “repeated rounds of questioning to undermine the will of the person being questioned.” Henry v. State, 574 So.2d 66, 70 (Fla.1991) (citing Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 102 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Fioritto
green
2 sentences1970People v. Fioritto, 1968, 68 Cal.2d 714 , 68 Cal. Rptr. 817 , 441 P.2d 625 . [2] Benchmarks. 1970People v. Fioritto, 1968, 68 Cal.2d 714 , 68 Cal. Rptr. 817 , 441 P.2d 625 . [2] Benchmarks. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.