Legal Opinion

State v. Mahoney

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided February 6, 1996No. 13637-0-IIIPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, C.J.

A suspect must be in custody or "otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way” to trigger the protections afforded by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966). Police telephoned Erik Duane Ma-honey and asked him whether he was present when stereo equipment was stolen from a vehicle parked at a Spokane apartment complex. Mr. Mahoney said he and two friends were "checking out cars” at about 1:30 a.m. He then admitted that he kept an eye out while the others removed the rear window of a vehicle and took stereo equipment and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. State v. PostWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  4. State v. HarrisWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  5. State v. BaezaWashington Supreme Court · 1983

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. N.M.K.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  2. State v. PosenjakCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  3. State v. PosenjakCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  4. State v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  5. State v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API