Stansbury v. California
- Decided
- April 26, 1994
- Docket
- 93-5770
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,603 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the court looks to “the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views” of the questioning officers or the defendant — United States v. Houston (2013)
- holding that statements Hernandez made during a standoff after an attempted jail break were not the result of custodial interrogation — Murphy, Patrick Henry, Jr. (2006)
- holding that the objective circumstances must be examined to determine whether the suspect was deprived of his freedom in a significant way — Jason Wayne Gregory v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2001)
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
Per Curiam.
This case concerns the rules for determining whether a person being questioned by law enforcement officers is held in custody, and thus entitled to the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). We hold, not for the first time, that an officer’s subjective and undisclosed view concerning whether the person being interrogated is a suspect is irrelevant to the assessment whether the person is in custody.
I
Cite this
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994)Read the full opinion
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.