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 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cuervo v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Cuervo, 967 So. 2d at 165 . [A]ny statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. 2018See Cuervo , 967 So.2d at 165 . [A]ny statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Michigan v. Mosley
green
2 sentences1983Because it is clear that the questioning of the defendant did not immediately cease, see Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (where defendant's request to cut off questioning was honored, resumption of questioning with respect to a different crime after the passage of a significant period of time and fresh set of warnings did not violate Miranda ), the sole issue before us is whether the defendant's words, "I want to go home. 1983Because it is clear that the questioning of the defendant did not immediately cease, see Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (where defendant's request to cut off questioning was honored, resumption of questioning with respect to a different crime after the passage of a significant period of time and fresh set of warnings did not violate Miranda ), the sole issue before us is whether the defendant's words, "I want to go home. | 2 | 1980–1983 |
Fare v. Michael C.
green
2 sentences1989In Fare v. Michael C, 442 U.S. 707, 724-725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2571-72 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979), the court stated: ... the determination whether the statements obtained during custodial interrogation are admissible against the accused is to be made upon an inquiry into the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, to ascertain whether the accused in fact knowingly and voluntarily decided to forego his rights to remain silent.... 1989In Fare v. Michael C, 442 U.S. 707, 724-725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2571-72 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979), the court stated: ... the determination whether the statements obtained during custodial interrogation are admissible against the accused is to be made upon an inquiry into the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, to ascertain whether the accused in fact knowingly and voluntarily decided to forego his rights to remain silent.... | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence1984Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. 384 U.S. at 473 , 86 S.Ct. at 1627 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Michigan v. Tucker
green
2 sentences1980Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. [Footnote omitted.] Miranda required exclusion of any statements stemming from custodial interrogation unless the prosecution demonstrated compliance with its specific prophylactic safeguards. [7] If law enforcement officers fail to give the specified warnings before interrogation or fail to follow the Miranda guidelines during interrogation, the statement thus derived may be suppressed, even tho 1980Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. [Footnote omitted.] Miranda required exclusion of any statements stemming from custodial interrogation unless the prosecution demonstrated compliance with its specific prophylactic safeguards. [7] If law enforcement officers fail to give the specified warnings before interrogation or fail to follow the Miranda guidelines during interrogation, the statement thus derived may be suppressed, even tho | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.