43 Cited authorities

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,290 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Whren v. United States
517 U.S. 806 (1996) Cited 8,608 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, upon observing traffic violation, officer may stop vehicle regardless of his subjective motivations, "as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action"
United States v. Leon
468 U.S. 897 (1984) Cited 10,251 times 72 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a warrant is "subsequently invalidated," suppression is not necessary so long as the warrant was issued by a neutral magistrate and the officers' reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable
Rhode Island v. Innis
446 U.S. 291 (1980) Cited 6,135 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that a police officer's subjective intent to obtain incriminatory statements is not relevant to determining whether an interrogation has occurred
Missouri v. Seibert
542 U.S. 600 (2004) Cited 1,990 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[s]trategists dedicated to draining the substance out of" constitutional protections cannot accomplish by planning around these protections because it "effectively threatens to thwart [their] purpose"
Dickerson v. United States
530 U.S. 428 (2000) Cited 2,289 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”
Stansbury v. California
511 U.S. 318 (1994) Cited 2,938 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a clear statement by a police officer that the person being questioned is a suspect does not alone determine custody, but is only "one among many factors" that bear on an assessment of whether a reasonable person would feel free to depart
Moran v. Burbine
475 U.S. 412 (1986) Cited 4,088 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted
Ake v. Oklahoma
470 U.S. 68 (1985) Cited 3,051 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that when the State presents aggravating psychiatric evidence during a capital sentencing proceeding, the defendant has a due process right to the assistance of a psychiatrist
New York v. Quarles
467 U.S. 649 (1984) Cited 1,576 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that an officer's subjective motivation is irrelevant to determining the applicability of the public safety exception to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694

The People, Appellant,v.Collin F. Lloyd-Douglas, Respondent.

43 Cited authorities

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

Holding that, upon observing traffic violation, officer may stop vehicle regardless of his subjective motivations, "as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action"

Holding that when a warrant is "subsequently invalidated," suppression is not necessary so long as the warrant was issued by a neutral magistrate and the officers' reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable

Holding that a police officer's subjective intent to obtain incriminatory statements is not relevant to determining whether an interrogation has occurred

Holding that "[s]trategists dedicated to draining the substance out of" constitutional protections cannot accomplish by planning around these protections because it "effectively threatens to thwart [their] purpose"

Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”

Holding that a clear statement by a police officer that the person being questioned is a suspect does not alone determine custody, but is only "one among many factors" that bear on an assessment of whether a reasonable person would feel free to depart

Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted

Holding that when the State presents aggravating psychiatric evidence during a capital sentencing proceeding, the defendant has a due process right to the assistance of a psychiatrist

Holding that an officer's subjective motivation is irrelevant to determining the applicability of the public safety exception to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694