Rhode Island v. Innis
- Decided
- May 12, 1980
- Docket
- 78-1076
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,571 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a police officer’s subjective intent to obtain incriminatory statements is not relevant to determining whether an interrogation has occurred — Michigan v. Bryant (2011)
- recognizing that not "all statements obtained by the police after a person has been taken into custody are to be considered the product of interrogation" — Howard v. Moore (1997)
- holding that interrogation under Miranda refers to words or actions by the police that they "should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response" — Mitchell Carlton Sims v. Jill Brown, Warden (2005)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 474, the Court held that, once a defendant in custody asks to speak with a lawyer, all interrogation must cease until a lawyer is present. The issue in this case is whether the respondent was “interrogated” in violation of the standards promulgated in the Miranda opinion.
I
Cite this
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.