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.
5 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 |
|---|---|---|
Missouri v. Seibertgreen2 sentences2022Then, in the second stage, the police give the person his Miranda warnings, the person waives his right to remain silent and the person repeats his prior statements in response to the police repeating the questions or lines of questions asked prior to the Miranda warnings being given.” Zamora, 220 Ariz. at 66 , ¶ 1 n.2 (citing Seibert, 542 U.S. at 604 ). 5 Because Seibert is a plurality opinion, we interpret its holding based on Justice Kennedy’s concurrence—the narrowest opinion concurring in the judgment. 2016Orner, therefore, was not in custody, and no Miranda violation occurred. ¶26 Orner also argues that the three separate interviews amounted to a “three-stage ploy to obtain inculpatory statements,” thereby rendering the statements made after Officer JW informed him of his Miranda rights inadmissible under Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004). ¶27 We have previously described the two-stage interrogation technique prohibited by Seibert as follows: In the first stage, police interrogate a person in custody without having given the person his Miranda warnings and the person has made statements | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Zamora
green
2 sentences2025Then, in the second stage, the police give the person his Miranda warnings, the person waives his right to remain silent and the person repeats his prior statements in response to the police repeating the questions or lines of questions asked prior to the Miranda warnings being given. 2 The court’s suppression of Dammann’s pre-Miranda statements to police is not named as an issue for this appeal and we do not address it. 3 STATE v. DAMMANN Decision of the Court Id. 2022Then, in the second stage, the police give the person his Miranda warnings, the person waives his right to remain silent and the person repeats his prior statements in response to the police repeating the questions or lines of questions asked prior to the Miranda warnings being given.” Zamora, 220 Ariz. at 66 , ¶ 1 n.2 (citing Seibert, 542 U.S. at 604 ). 5 Because Seibert is a plurality opinion, we interpret its holding based on Justice Kennedy’s concurrence—the narrowest opinion concurring in the judgment. | 4 | 2016–2025 |