Jump to content

Stansbury v. California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Extraordinary Writ (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 10 January 2022 (replacing hyphens with endashes per MOS:RANGE (via WP:JWB)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Robert Edward Stansbury v. California
Argued March 30, 1994
Decided April 26, 1994
Full case nameRobert Edward Stansbury v. California
Citations511 U.S. 318 (more)
114 S. Ct. 1526; 128 L. Ed. 2d 293
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted; Calif. Sup. Ct. affirms
SubsequentCase remanded to trial court.
Holding
The test for custody under Miranda v. Arizona is whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. The subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned are irrelevant. The key inquiry should be whether the individual had been placed under formal arrest, or whether the restraint placed on the individual's freedom of movement rose to the level of a formal arrest.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Harry Blackmun · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Case opinions
Per curiam
ConcurrenceBlackmun
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a police officer's subjective and undisclosed opinion whether a person who had been questioned was a suspect was relevant in determining whether that person had been in custody and thus entitled to the Miranda warnings.[1] In a 9–0 ruling, the Court reversed and remanded the case. In a per curiam decision, the Court held that "an officer's subjective and undisclosed view concerning whether the person being interrogated is a suspect is irrelevant to the assessment [of] whether the person is in custody."[1]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994).
[edit]