People v. Hill
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
The people appeal by leave granted from an order suppressing the use of certain statements which had been made by defendant without the benefit of Miranda warnings. The parties agree that, when he made the statements, defendant was not in custody but was the focus of a gas fraud investigation. The people contend on appeal that it is custody, and not "focus,” that triggers the duty to give Miranda warnings.
Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1968), applies to "custodial interrogation,” of which the United States Supreme Court said,
By custodial interrogation we…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Oregon v. MathiasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Beckwith v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- People v. MyersMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987