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 California opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
New York v. Quarlesgreen2 sentences2009The high court held that the officer’s initial question to the defendant did not violate Miranda because of “a ‘public safety’ exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s answers may be admitted into evidence.” (Quarles, supra, 467 U.S. at p. 655 .) Quarles held that “the availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved.” (Id. at p. 656.) Quarles explained that the officers in that case were faced with a “kaleidoscopic situation” (Quarles, supra, 467 U.S. at p. 656 ) in which “spontaneity rather than adher 2009The high court held that the officer’s initial question to the defendant did not violate Miranda because of “a ‘public safety’ exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s answers may be admitted into evidence.” (Quarles, supra, 467 U.S. at p. 655 .) Quarles held that “the availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved.” (Id. at p. 656.) Quarles explained that the officers in that case were faced with a “kaleidoscopic situation” (Quarles, supra, 467 U.S. at p. 656 ) in which “spontaneity rather than adher | 1 | 4 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences1990In New York v. Quarles (1984) 467 U.S. 649 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 550 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 ], the police chased an armed rapist, caught and handcuffed him, and asked him where the gun was; he replied that it was "`over there.'" ( Id., at pp. 651-652.) The United States Supreme Court held that where there was no claim that defendant's statements were compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist, "on these facts there is a `public safety' exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence, and that the availability of that exce 1990In New York v. Quarles (1984) 467 U.S. 649 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 550 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 ], the police chased an armed rapist, caught and handcuffed him, and asked him where the gun was; he replied that it was "`over there.'" ( Id., at pp. 651-652.) The United States Supreme Court held that where there was no claim that defendant's statements were compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist, "on these facts there is a `public safety' exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence, and that the availability of that exce | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1990In New York v. Quarles (1984) 467 U.S. 649 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 550 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 ], the police chased an armed rapist, caught and handcuffed him, and asked him where the gun was; he replied that it was “ ‘over there.’ ” (Id., at pp. 651-652.) The United States Supreme Court held that where there was no claim that defendant’s statements were compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist, “on these facts there is a ‘public safety’ exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s answers may be admitted into evidence, and that the availability of that exc 1990In New York v. Quarles (1984) 467 U.S. 649 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 550 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 ], the police chased an armed rapist, caught and handcuffed him, and asked him where the gun was; he replied that it was “ ‘over there.’ ” (Id., at pp. 651-652.) The United States Supreme Court held that where there was no claim that defendant’s statements were compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist, “on these facts there is a ‘public safety’ exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s answers may be admitted into evidence, and that the availability of that exc | 1 | 1 |
Minnesota v. Murphygreen2 sentences1986(See Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) 465 U.S. 420, 433 [ 79 L.Ed.2d 409, 423 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 ].) We conclude the decision of the police to participate in the September 23, 1983, telephone conversations initiated by appellant did not constitute custodial interrogation triggering the requirement that Miranda warnings be given. 1986(See Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) 465 U.S. 420, 433 [ 79 L.Ed.2d 409, 423 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 ].) We conclude the decision of the police to participate in the September 23, 1983, telephone conversations initiated by appellant did not constitute custodial interrogation triggering the requirement that Miranda warnings be given. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.