Legal Opinion
State v. Heritage
Washington Supreme Court
Decided August 5, 2004No. 73522-1PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
This case involves whether city park security officers who questioned Tiffany Juel Heritage about her activities in a city park in Spokane were required to give Miranda1 warnings. Finding against Heritage on a charge of possession of drug paraphernalia, the juvenile court reasoned that Miranda warnings were unnecessary because the city park officers were not agents of the State and Heritage was not in custody. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. We reverse the Court of Appeals.
FACTS
On June 18, 2001, two bicycle security officers were on duty in Riverfront Park, a city park in…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Estelle v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Mathis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- State v. HeritageWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. MoralesWashington Supreme Court · 2012
- State v. MarcumCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- State v. Rosas-MirandaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- State v. HickmanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.