Citation network
Maryland Vs. Shatzer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 22, 2010
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2009 Maryland V. ShatzerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
rights and made inculpatory statements. The trial court refused to suppress those statements, reasoning that Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Patterson v. IllinoisSearch
-
this Court to specify the period of release from custody that will terminate its application. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlinSearch
-
in part and concurring in the judgment. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Maryland v. ShatzerSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Maryland V. ShatzerSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-680 Maryland, Petitioner V. MichaelSearch
-
Court. We consider whether a break in custody ends the presumption of involuntariness established in Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
II The Fifth Amendment, which applies to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
U. S. Const., Amdt. 5. In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Edwards rule is not a constitutional mandate, but judicially prescribed prophylaxis. See, e.g. , Montejo v. LouisianaSearch
-
Lower courts have uniformly held that a break in custody ends the Edwards presumption, see, e.g. , People v. StormSearch
-
Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
Smith v. IllinoisSearch
-
ibid. (quoting Moran v. BurbineSearch
-
for this Court to set forth precise time limits governing police action, it is not unheard-of. In County of Riverside v. McLaughlinSearch
-
we specified 48 hours as the time within which the police must comply with the requirement of Gerstein v. PughSearch
-
and have indeed explicitly declined to address the issue. See Perkins , 496 U. S., at 299. See also Bradley v. OhioSearch
-
see also Stansbury v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Thus, the temporary and relatively nonthreatening detention involved in a traffic stop or Terry stop, see Terry v. OhioSearch
-
s waiver of Miranda rights is involuntary. See Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
arguing that his waiver of Miranda rights was in fact involuntary under Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
Edwards prevents any efforts to get him to change his mind during that interrogative custody. Maryland v. ShatzerSearch
-
Opinion of Thomas, J. Maryland V. ShatzerSearch
-
s decision to extend the presumption of involuntariness established in Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Edwards is justifiable even in the custodial setting to which Edwards applies it. See, e.g., Minnick v. MississippiSearch
-
Our precedents insist that judicially created prophylactic rules like those in Edwards and Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
between the rule and the Fifth Amendment interests they seek to protect. United States v. PataneSearch
-
see generally Montejo v. LouisianaSearch
-
made clear when refusing to adopt such rules in cases involving other Miranda rights. See, e.g ., Michigan v. MosleySearch
-
s statements in court. Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
See County of Riverside v. McLaughlinSearch
-
Maryland, Petitioner V. MichaelSearch
-
of the Fourteenth Amendment, Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial