LEGAL

RESEARCH

Use of Force
- Generally
The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
- Attachment of Right
- Confrontation Clause
- Crime Specfific
  - Texas v. Cobb
  - Maine v. Moulton
- Critical Stages - Lineups
  - United States v. Wade
  - Gilbert v. California
- Critical Stages - Questioning
- Right to Counsel
  - Gideon v. Wainwright
  - Massiah v. United States
The Fourth Amendment: What is a Search?
- Abandoned Property
  - Abel v. United States
  - California v. Greenwood
- Applies to Government Activities Only
- Foreign Searches
  - United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
- Generally
- Open Fields & Curtilage
- Private Intrusions
  - Walter v. United States
  - United States v. Jacobsen
- Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
- Third Party Control
The Forth Amendment: What is a Seizure?
- Arrests-Arrest Warrants
- Arrests-Generally
  - Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
- Arrests-Premises
- Arrests-Third Party Premises
  - Pembaur v. Cincinnati
  - Steagald v. United States
- Generally
- Stops-Generally
- Stops-Terry/Traffic Stops
The Fifth Amendment
- Compelled
- Due Process
- Fourth Amendement Violations
- Holder of the Privelege
- Immunity
- Introductory Issues
- Miranda - Custody
- Miranda - Generally
- Miranda - Goverment Employees
- Miranda - Interrogation
  - Pennsylvania v. Muniz
  - Rhode Island v. Innis
- Miranda - Police
  - Arizona v. Mauro
  - Illinois v. Perkins
- Miranda - Right to Counsel
- Miranda - Right to Silence
- Miranda - Waiver
- Miranda Exceptions
  - New York v. Quarles
  - Harris v. New York
- Testimonial Evidence
- Voluntary
Search Warrants
- Establishing P.C. in Affidavit
- Neutral and Detached Magistrate
  - Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York
  - Connelly v. Georgia
- Probable Cause - Required
  - Winston v. Lee
  - Byars v. United States
- Serving the Warrant - Knock and Announce
- Serving the Warrant - Person at the Premises
- Serving the Warrant - Related Issues
- With Particularity
Search Warrant Exceptions - P.C. Not Needed
- Consent
- Frisk
- Inspections - Border Inspections
  - United States v. Flores-Montano
  - United States v. Ramsey
- Inspections - Parolees
  - Samson v. California
  - United States v. Knights
- Inspections - Special Needs
- Inspections - Structures
- Inspections - Vehicles
- Inventories
- Search Incident to Arrest
  - United States v. Chadwick
- Search Incident to Arrest - Alcohol Test
  - Birchfield v. North Dakota
- Search Incident to Arrest - Cell Phones
  - Riley v. California
- Search Incident to Arrest - Persons
- Search Incident to Arrest - Premises
- Search Incident to Arrest - Vehicles
Search Warrant Exceptions - P.C. Needed
- Destruction of Evidence
- Emergency Scenes
- Hot Pursuit
- Mobile Vehicles
- Plain View
Related Search and Seizure Issues
- Officer's Intent
- Other Issues
Other Cases
- Generally
Liability
- Brady Material
- Generally
Levels of Suspicion
- Probable Cause
- Reasonable Suspicion
Fourth Amendment - Exclusionary Rule
- Exceptions - Attenuation
  - Utah v. Strieff
- Exceptions - Good Faith Exceptions
- Exceptions - Impeachement
- Exceptions - Independent Source
  - Murray v. United States
- Exceptions - Inevitable Discovery
  - Nix v. Williams
- Exceptions - No Standing to Object
- Exceptions - Other Hearings
  - Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott
  - United States v. Calandra
- Fruit of the Poisonus Tree
- Origins

Miranda - Police

Arizona v. Mauro

Facts

The defendant was arrested for killing his son. After being read his Miranda rights, he invoked his right to counsel and stated that he did not wish to answer any questions until a lawyer was present. The defendant’s wife insisted that she be allowed to speak with the defendant. The police allowed the meeting on the condition that an officer be present during the encounter. Using a tape recorder in plain sight, the officer taped a brief conversation during which the defendant told his wife not to answer any questions until a lawyer was present. At trial, the prosecution used the tape to rebut defendant’s insanity defense.

Issue

Whether the police impermissibly interrogated the defendant in violation of his Miranda rights?

Held

No. The defendant, who had asserted his right to counsel, was not subjected to interrogation or its functional equivalent when the government allowed the defendant’s wife to speak with defendant in the presence of an officer.

Discussion

The purpose of Miranda is to prevent the government from using the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment. This fear was not implicated here because the defendant was not subjected to compelling influences, psychological ploys, or direct questioning by the government. From the defendant’s perspective, it is improbable that he felt he was being coerced to incriminate himself simply because he was told his wife would be allowed to speak to him.

Citation

481 U.S. 520, 107 S. Ct. 1931 (1987)

LEGAL

Use of Force

Generally

The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

Attachment of Right

Confrontation Clause

Crime Specfific

Critical Stages - Lineups

Critical Stages - Questioning

Right to Counsel

The Fourth Amendment: What is a Search?

Abandoned Property

Applies to Government Activities Only

Foreign Searches

Generally

Open Fields & Curtilage

Private Intrusions

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Third Party Control

The Forth Amendment: What is a Seizure?

Arrests-Arrest Warrants

Arrests-Generally

Arrests-Premises

Arrests-Third Party Premises

Generally

Stops-Generally

Stops-Terry/Traffic Stops

The Fifth Amendment

Compelled

Due Process

Fourth Amendement Violations

Holder of the Privelege