This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Yes this is always a very difficult part with articles like these because the ruling is technical but the article needs to explain in it in a non-technical way. Yarborough v. Alvarado says the following: "custody for Miranda purposes during a police interview". Later in the article, it says: "Before custodial interrogations, police are required to give suspects a Miranda warning that informs suspects of their legal rights during interrogation". Thoughts? -- Sailing to Byzantium(msg), 12:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused. Is there some "constructive" (in its Anglo-American legal sense of "construed" or "implicit") waiver of the requirement for the Miranda warning for the statements given by a person already in Police custody? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The general idea is that police are required to give you a Miranda warning only if you are in police custody. If you are just chatting with a police officer on the street, then they do not need to give you a Miranda warning because you can just leave at any time. If they arrest you and take you in to the police station for questioning, then they do. But what about situations in between? Let's say a police officer tells you that you cannot leave and scares you into thinking you are under arrest, but does not arrest you. Even though you're not technically under arrest, you are still just as scared and as vulnerable as if you had actually been arrested. In that type of situation, the police are still required to give you a Miranda warning. A "custody determination" is the court deciding whether, given the facts presented, would a reasonable person have felt free to leave from police questioning or did they feel that they were in custody. Miranda warnings can still be required if you aren't technically in police custody, but the set of circumstances made it so that you felt like you were. -- Sailing to Byzantium(msg), 12:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
