Stansbury v. California
| Robert Edward Stansbury v. California | |
|---|---|
 Calif. Sup. Ct. affirms | |
| Subsequent | Case remanded to trial court. |
| Holding | |
| The test for custody under Miranda v. Arizona is whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. The subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned are irrelevant. The key inquiry should be whether the individual had been placed under formal arrest, or whether the restraint placed on the individual's freedom of movement rose to the level of a formal arrest. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Per curiam | |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V | |
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994), is a
per curiam decision, the Court held that "an officer's subjective and undisclosed view concerning whether the person being interrogated is a suspect is irrelevant to the assessment [of] whether the person is in custody."[1]
References
External links
- Text of Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) is available from: Cornell Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |