[email protected]
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
EXCELLENT Based on 387 reviews sean thompson2024-09-06Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Just took the SRO course. What an absolute outstanding training!!! I am not an SRO and have not been one. But as the Captain I need to learn and understand as much as I can. This course is excellent to have a better understanding of the law and the SRO... Keep up the great work B2G!!!! Doug Wallace2024-08-29Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Good information provided on S&S James Scira2024-08-27Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training. I would recommend Blue to Gold training to members of LE. Nichalas Liddle2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I have had the pleasure of getting to watch some webinars from Blue to Gold and have enjoyed all the insights and knowledge that the instructors have. Good training for all of us in LE careers. Keep on with the good work yโall do. brian kinsley2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training, refreshers, topic introductions. I love the free webinars! It really helps when budgets are tight. Thank you!! Tim Crouch2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great, free webinars. Thank you. I love the attorney provided content for up to date and accurate information. Anthony Smith2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Awesome stuff!
Gifts & Gears
Mailing Address
Blue to Gold, LLC
12402 N Division St #119
Spokane, WA 99218
RESEARCH
A defendant, upon the request of a police officer, presented himself at police headquarters. Once there, during a 2-hour tape-recorded session, he was questioned by officers about the murder of his former wife. During the questioning, the officers repeatedly told the accused that he was free to leave, but also told him that they knew he had killed the victim. The accused was not informed of his Miranda rights. Eventually, he told the officers that he had committed the crime. Following the interview, the defendant was allowed to leave the police headquarters. He was arrested 2-hours later and charged with first-degree murder. The state court found that the defendant was not in custody at the time of the statements.
Whether the state courtโs determination of the custody issue has a presumption of correctness?
No. The determination of whether a person is in custody is a mixed question of fact and law.
Trial courts are given great deference in issues of credibility. However, two discrete inquiries are essential to the determination whether there was โa โformal arrest or restraint on freedom of movementโ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.โ California v. Beheler. The first inquiry, what circumstances surrounded the interrogation, is distinctly factual. The second inquiry, would a reasonable person have felt at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave, calls for application of the law. In these inquiries, the trial courtโs superior capacity to resolve credibility issues is not the foremost factor.
516 U.S. 99, 116 S. Ct. 457 (1995)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved