Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966), [1] "custodial interrogation [refers to] questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." The United States Supreme Court has clarified that a person is being subjected to a custodial ...
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials.
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that once a defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, police must cease custodial interrogation. Re-interrogation is only permissible once defendant's counsel has been made available to him, or he himself initiates further ...
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012), [1] was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that an interrogation of a prisoner was not a custodial interrogation per se, and certainly it was not "clearly established federal law" that it was custodial, as would be required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).
As Escobedo was questioned during a custodial interrogation, the result for him would have been the same. [7] [8] [9] In the years following the decision, Escobedo received 12 felony convictions, including federal charges of selling drugs. He was also convicted of taking indecent liberties with children.
The pre-arrest interrogation raised the issue of whether detention was equivalent to custody for purposes of the Miranda rule. [6] In its opinion, the court stated: The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute "custodial interrogation" for the purposes of the Miranda rule.
The detention decision directly made by the people's court is a judicial compulsory measure, based on the Civil Procedure Law or the Administrative Procedure Law. The maximum period is 20 days, and the court will deliver the detainee to the administrative detention facility of the public security department for execute.
Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule (from Chimel v.California), is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence.