State of Indiana v. Ernesto Ruiz
Indiana Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Rush, Chief Justice.
If police interrogate someone in custody without providing Miranda warnings, the person's interrogated statements are generally inadmissible as evidence against that individual in a criminal trial.
Here, two police officers interrogated Ernesto Ruiz in a secured area at a police station, without providing him Miranda warnings. When the State tried to use statements Ruiz made during the interrogation as evidence against him in a criminal trial, he moved to suppress them as inadmissible. The trial court granted the motion.
The State appealed, arguing suppression was contrary…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Colorado v. ConnellySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Oregon v. MathiasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Lego v. TwomeySupreme Court of the United States · 1972
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Dustin B. Crabtree v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2020
- Michael Scanland v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2019
- Roy Hudnall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)Indiana Court of Appeals · 2020
- State of Indiana v. Axel Domingo DiegoIndiana Court of Appeals · 2020
- State of Indiana v. Axel Domingo DiegoIndiana Court of Appeals · 2020
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.