United States v. Brown
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge:
The requirement that the police advise a suspect in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), is triggered by custodial interrogation. See id. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602; Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). In this case there is no dispute that defendant Brown was in custody at the relevant time; the issue rather is whether he was “interrogated” before the police advised him of his Miranda rights. The trial judge ruled that he was, and therefore suppressed incriminating statements…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Arizona v. MauroSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Derrington v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- United States v. AlexanderDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. SawyerTennessee Supreme Court · 2005
- Hill v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
- Mitchell v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- Clark v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- Dancy v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.