DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court, U.S. FILED DEC 26 201/ No. OFFICE OF THE CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ENM)UEL L. F-104CR -PETITIONER (Your Name) vs. RACx' GV14Av1 eL -RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO 4 e- S c#/r r .1'0'0 r'j- e111 (NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE) PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI E\AOEL L c.-\ Z48900 (Your Name) -?.-A / Z- L ?ox 2Øk9 (Address) 4cw at.vcs;WA. 3a (City, State, Zip Code) (Phone Number) . f \. J EMANUEL FINCH 348900 P01 Building: R Section: RBCelI:12L ID:525759533 [P 1/11 You have received a fj letter, the fastest way to get mail From : EMANUEL FINCH, ID: 348900 TATt 13525759533 ct?1LE. cao3c~-s- Page 1 of QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whether it is a question of Law for the Supreme Court of the United States to determine the conduct complained of? Whether the Petitioner have a Constitutional right to a fair trial ? Whether there was a denial of due process because the evidence was unconstitutionally insufficient to convict? Whether the verdict should be set aside because it was contrary to the weight of evidence? Whether there was a denial of due process to the Petitioner because the trial did not comport with fundamental fairness because of the improper actions of Police and Prosecutor? Whether the materiality of false testimony is a question of Law ? for the Supreme Court of the United States to decide Whether the State bears the burden of proving voluntary consent when it obtains consent known as knock and talk? Whether the State or Defense Attorney have the burden to declare a witness unavailable? Whether the Petitioner have a Constitutional right to confront witnesses against him? Whether the failure of the trial court to advise the Petitioner of his CrR 35 (b) rights at the suppression hearing constitute reversible error? What constitute or consider a seizure? If a person or suspect is 'seized' is he consider to be in custody' for Miranda purposes? Whether in Washington State according to CrRLJ 3.1 "the phase taken into 'custody has been replaced with has been 'arrested'? For the purpose of Miranda V Arizona, 348 US 436 (1966), is the Police required to advise a person or suspect of his or her Miranda rights if he or she is in Police custody? Whether CrR 3.1 (b)(1) is equivalent to that of CrRLJ 3.1 (b)(1), that rule based on the right to Counsel before the Petitioner has a Sixth Amendment right to Counsel? Whether the right to a Lawyer shall accures as soon as feasible 'after the person or suspect is taken into custody? Whether the Police must comply with Ferrier warning prior to entering a person or suspect residence to effect an arrest or search? What constitute a Warrantless Search or Seizure? Whether a person or suspect have a Constitutional right to be confronted with evidence used against him including Audio and Video recordings? Whether a person or suspect have a Constitutional right to Compulsory Process? jpay TO your Mends and farniiyto 00w Jp8ycorn to wrte!efterandsendrnoney! LIST OF PARTIES DJ All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. [ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows: EMANUEL FINCH 348900 P01 Building: R Section: RBCell:12L ID:525722927 [P 1111 You have received a JPOY letter, the fastest way to get mail From : EMANUEL FINCH, ID: 348900 ( 3 D: 525722927 Page 1 of 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 thru 4 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Page 1 thru 7 Motion for leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis Pages 1 thru 11 Table of Authorities cited Page 1 Opinion below Page 2 Jurisdiction Page 1 thru 11 Constitutional and Statutory provisions involved same as table of authorities Page 1 of 1 Question(s) presented Page 1 thru 8 Statement of the case Page 9 thru 18 Reason for granting Writ Page 1 of 1 Conclusion Page 1 of 1 Proof of Service dated December 24, 2017 !'j44iLEt" , Page 1 of Proof of Service dated this day of , O t) INDEX TO APPENDICES APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX I APPENDIX 0 APPENDIX REPORT and RECOMMENDATION dated November 13, 2015 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION dated December 3, 2015 r 1' '-r c -r < e Cjs Ir LrL/) V& pvt4 l iIp& vZ,l( e/ i1 __ Wi t42 -- L Ur )-T' M4&I1Pr C tie4 5 SQ-i_ • l& ,t-1e LlEZcJ 11 3 (C(i (I. -J c t) o & S . 1.1 C-r/ V 2c1 ZI5 le C(1e;)_ k V 3Z (ASJ,l L re 'S. c 1Yc Oct 5-8) Ftc- - V Al __________ 10 •.. Zct 2.,t _______ C1id-\ V t_S. r4, z , .e7 It 2VJ AL A Z, d733 C,ig() c-r A/$7 (' !P ck3g~ , Jj V ccAo -r zcJ izi-. i vi ci 1 <9 c)r fl17 ) 1B21 $ t(SLJ.2.cJ E1O J U.s. -r 51 cit L 1 P G LJ Uf'cr 3 13 4 CA s,I:21 1 (1 L. d CA Fei,'1 fLok NO -e3 3LEd.ti-i, - c-,. 2(7 ) ii \J fli AII1- L4- 5- _I C ic) POA Pcrrdk ii' VT 'it z c I a 9, 17 PyLe) 4 3 ttLtI3,71.,.c.L P2Li P 'J Pt aic±g 7 Rt gç pqqe U -r-r V 11 'II5U9,_ , A/C(7 /oO . .i,Z(o &d ciLc (f4) -r4-r Syv U$LA 1pC, A 5 V t(fl f)e fl S —r T 2.. t CA L223 a co e, 6-7r e- VCU IA P.2d_(13'4_() i i i (qqJ - ckSe t4( Sr4-r V its cP 1c 3j3€- 12. 3 rcr V VYi; 100 V .5'l1 VL1 oi • e C4 -r ________________Gobs P.24 (%k<1) ek i4ad (iqJL ___ -reCojr _,r _ Cct.a L ______ lcr 71( ?z1d iio (&1,. ?-d 1039 (e). _V8 " 3r jj I\Jp4j/?1( ('J V V 0,01C V J•wo P V • ________ __ 6J4v,_Upp '. tdC • _________ Ptd (,qqt) \ q vvk CA i \JvA PP, 3'i4 ,t- PP&s Ur V r- 2S7 or III. C, VLIA id cJri. I VS -,-- '4 I I Unce& V u&cj ?JS' PC,3 ,q- r t. cJ ii / C ,.i Lf ?±s t2. J-reci r e,-Tle5 v r e( cq qt F , S a pp. ad C4( 1C) l3_LI _____ LcA\ O) °7s'-_I_k76_ZcL_e,..S. __________ • _______ g cDOI 230 C- ec , (W t, cc cZs e, C- LAJ cJi QcjlO it &c3 2.,01(.9 t,-/o'J P L5 04 04 jP Co \ c 0 Cot t k R. c!.J. tCD.T- ci 41 ei CL.Ritr c!1 fboe Cvhr!ero_/ 90 4 ea o ZcLL C Lj r1 j1LL' t' in _II 3:i- tie P4c - rLo S- IR r_ kt cr 3o'f 4 LcL ______ • CL 4p- V .La wt e.t-r • ______ co ci -r o 9 Ec L v_&q' k&e. Ci dA a C, I 3 CoLu. L5 ot r '- tiU 9f. CA • Jur'7LAe Hc4 T f6 Lry ti'-7S(rt p • ck Q p 04 die i Pc-r i C, ri Li .5 i e6 Oj I • (( - ________ us C)Cz -r I __ _ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. OPINIONS BELOW [ ] For cases from federal courts: The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix'K to the petition and is [1 reported at ; or, [] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, IXl is unpublished. The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix to the petition and is [I reported at ; or, [ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, [ ] is unpublished. [ ] For cases from state courts: The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at Appendix to the petition and is II] reported at ; or, [ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, [ ] is unpublished. The opinion of the - court appears at Appendix to the petition and is { ] reported at ; or, [ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, [ ] is unpublished. 1. JURISDICTION [ ] For cases from federal courts: The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was " 7°'1 - [ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case. [ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of Appeals on the following date: , and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix . [ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to and including (date) on ____________________ (date) in Application No. A______ The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1). [ ] For cases from state courts: The date on which the highest state court decided my case was A copy of that decision appears at Appendix [3 A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date: and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Drawing a Line Between Terry and Miranda: the Degree and Duration of Restraint Katherine M
    Drawing a Line between Terry and Miranda: The Degree and Duration of Restraint Katherine M. Swifit INTRODUCTION A felon answered the door in his underwear. Three police officers and three parole officers were there to search his apartment for a gun on the basis of a tip from his mother.! The police handcuffed him in the hallway outside his apartment, but told him he was not under ar- rest; the handcuffs were for his safety and the safety of the officers. Then they took him inside and asked about the gun, which he told them was in a shoebox on the table. The police never read the suspect his Miranda warnings. Was he "in custody"? Or was this merely a tem- porary detention? Mirandav Arizona' held that police may not interrogate a suspect who has been taken into custody without first issuing the familiar warnings Investigative stops, valid under Terry v Ohio,' are not sub- ject to Miranda's notice requirements.! Courts have not settled on a workable rule for determining custody in Terry stop cases. Part of the problem is that custody cases involve so many factors.! But more im- portant, coercive police behavior that would have required Miranda warnings in 1966 often is deemed reasonable under Terry today. This has led to a circuit split over whether coercive Terry stops constitute Miranda custody. The First, Fourth, and Eighth circuits hold t B.A., BJ. 1998, University of Missouri-Columbia; J.D. 2006, The University of Chicago. I The facts used in this example are drawn from United States v Newton, 369 F3d 659, 663 (2d Cir 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Police Miranda Warning and Waiver Draft
    GENERAL POLICE ORDER CLEVELAND DIVISION OF POLICE ORIGINAL EFFECTIVE DATE : REVISED DATE: NO. PAGES: NUMBER: 8-20-2018 1 of 6 SUBJECT: MIRANDA WARNING AND WAIVER ASSOCIATED MANUAL: RELATED ORDERS: CHIEF OF POLICE: PURPOSE: To establish Cleveland Division of Police guidelines so that all questioning of criminal suspects comply with the Constitution, federal, and state laws. POLICY: It is the policy of the Division to respect the fundamental rights of all individuals. When a person is taken into custody, or otherwise deprived or his or her freedom of action in a significant way, and when he or she is to be questioned, the Division shall afford him or her the procedural safeguards required to protect his or her Fifth Amendment right against involuntary self-incrimination. DEFINITIONS: Custody: When an officer has arrested that individual or when a reasonable person in the individual’s position would not feel free to leave based on a totality of the circumstances. Questioning incident to a routine traffic stop are not considered custodial. Interrogation:Interrogation is any conduct that the officer knows or reasonably knows would elicit an incriminating response from a suspect. Interrogation is not just direct questioning but also any words or actions (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the officer knows or reasonably knows is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Juvenile: An individual under the age of 18. PROCEDURES: I. The Miranda Warning General Requirements. A. The Miranda Warning is required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and applies only to sworn police officers who will be questioning or interrogating a suspect who is in custody.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT STATE of NORTH DAKOTA State of North Dakota, Appellee, Vs. Samuel Elliot Hansford, Appellant. ) ) ) )
    20180179 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA ) ) State of North Dakota, ) Supreme Court No.: 20180179 Appellee, ) ) vs. ) ) Samuel Elliot Hansford, District Court No.: 17-2017-CR-1 ) Appellant. ) APPEAL FROM THE SOUTHWEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA HONORABLE JAMES D. GION BRIEF OF APPELLEE THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA FROM THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT DATED MAY 4. 2018 OF GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTY, DISTRICT COURT BY THE HONORABLE JAMES D. GION, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTY. By: Christina M. Wenko ND State Bar ID No.: 06884 Golden Valley County State’s Attorney c/o Mackoff Kellogg Law Firm 38 Second Avenue East Dickinson, North Dakota 58601 Ph: (701) 456-3210 email: [email protected] Attorney for the Appellee TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................. iii STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ......................................................................................... ¶1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................................... ¶2 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ....................................................................................... ¶3 STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................... ¶12 LAW AND ARGUMENT ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • General Order
    Lexington Police Department Lexington, Kentucky GENERAL ORDER BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE G.O. 2014-02 Interviews, Interrogations and Confessions Rescinds: SOP BOI 1993-26A References: CALEA Chapter(s) Effective Date: 02/19/16 Distribution Code: B All Department Employees Originally Issued: 2016 I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide officers with legally sound procedures for conducting custodial interrogations and to establish guidelines and procedures for the electronic recording of custodial interrogations and confessions. The purpose of this policy is also to provide officers with procedures for interviewing and interrogating juveniles that are both legal and consistent with the limitations in maturity and emotional development characteristic of juveniles. The purpose of this policy is also to establish procedures that ensure that all suspects are accorded their constitutional rights. II. POLICY It shall be the policy of the Lexington Police Department to acknowledge that statements and confessions must be given freely and voluntarily and with due consideration for the suspect’s right to silence and right to counsel. It shall also be the policy of the department to acknowledge that the U. S. Supreme Court has recognized the emotional and developmental differences between adults and juveniles and the implications that this has on the conduct of juvenile interviews in general and interrogations in particular. These differences must be taken into account when an officer conducts an interview or interrogation of a juvenile. It shall also be the policy of the department that all officers observe due process and legal rights of suspects, including juveniles, and protect against charges of police coercion or intimidation during interviews and interrogations.
    [Show full text]
  • Miranda Warning and the Tax Fraud Investigation
    THE MIRANDA WARNING AND THE TAX FRAUD INVESTIGATION I. INTRODUCTION In 1966 the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Miranda v. Arizona,' holding that prior to custodial interrogation, the police must warn a suspect of his right to remain silent, that if he does speak anything he says may be used against him, that he has a right to consult an at- torney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him. The effect of the Miranda decision has been a shift in the conceptual basis of the fourth,2 fifth,3 and sixth4 amendments by creating a conclu- sive presumption against voluntariness when a person divulges self- incriminating information while subject to custodial interrogation if he is not warned of his fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment rights prior to ques- tioning. The purpose of this article is to question the broad application of Miranda and its nontax progeny to initial tax fraud investigations in a taxpayer's home or office. The thesis of the article is that in view of the noncustodial, nonaccusatory nature of the tax fraud investigation prior to the taxpayer's arrest and in view of the safeguards provided by the In- ternal Revenue Service (IRS) to protect the taxpayer's constitutional rights, there should be no broad application of Miranda and its nontax progeny to pre-arrest tax fraud investigations. To apply Miranda to these cases would be to use Miranda beyond its factual limitations and would be contrary to the theory of our self-assessment income tax system which re- quires a fairly free exchange of information between the taxpayer and the IRS.
    [Show full text]
  • Developments in Federal Search and Seizure Law
    FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER DISTRICT OF OREGON LISA C. HAY Federal Public Defender Oliver W. Loewy STEPHEN R. SADY 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700 Elizabeth G. Daily Chief Deputy Defender Portland, OR 97204 Conor Huseby Gerald M. Needham Robert Hamilton Thomas J. Hester 503-326-2123 / Fax: 503-326-5524 Bryan Francesconi Ruben L. Iñiguez Ryan Costello Anthony D. Bornstein Branch Offices: Irina Hughes▲ Susan Russell Kurt D. Hermansen▲ Francesca Freccero 859 Willamette Street 15 Newtown Street Devin Huseby + C. Renée Manes Suite 200 Medford, OR 97501 Kimberly-Claire E. Seymour▲ Nell Brown Eugene, OR 97401 541-776-3630 Jessica Snyder Kristina Hellman 541-465-6937 Fax: 541-776-3624 Cassidy R. Rice Fidel Cassino-DuCloux Fax: 541-465-6975 Alison M. Clark In Memoriam Brian Butler + Nancy Bergeson Thomas E. Price 1951 – 2009 Michelle Sweet Mark Ahlemeyer ▲ Eugene Office Susan Wilk + Medford Office Research /Writing Attorney DEVELOPMENTS IN FEDERAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAW Stephen R. Sady Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender October 2020 Update Madeleine Rogers Law Clerk TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 B. What Constitutes A Search? ............................................................................................ 3 C. What Constitutes A Seizure? ......................................................................................... 14 D. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Miranda Warning Equivalents Abroad
    Miranda Warning Equivalents Abroad May 2016 The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center (202) 707-6462 (phone) • (866) 550-0442 (fax) • [email protected] • http://www.law.gov Contents I. Americas and the Caribbean ....................................................................................................1 Antigua and Barbuda .......................................................................................................................1 Argentina..........................................................................................................................................2 Belize ..............................................................................................................................................2 Bermuda ..........................................................................................................................................3 Bolivia ..............................................................................................................................................3 British Virgin Islands ......................................................................................................................3 Canada..............................................................................................................................................3 Cayman Islands ................................................................................................................................5 Colombia ..........................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • "Miranda-Ain't Nobody Got Time for That" "You Have the Right to Remain Silent," This Is Just the Beginning T
    "Miranda-Ain't Nobody Got Time for That" "You have the right to remain silent," This is just the beginning to the Miranda warnings, but these seven words resonate soundly within anyone's mind. Any law enforcement television show or movie clearly states them upon someone's arrest. But what all do the Miranda warnings entail? Is it just fancy police rhetoric that claims protection over arrested individuals or does it actually serve a purpose? The reality is that Miranda warnings serve a very large role in protecting an individual's rights and trying to ensure justice for all. The warnings, alongside amendments such as the 5th and 10, help to maintain the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" and promote morality in the criminal justice field. Let's break down the Miranda warnings. First, "you have the right to remain silent." This ensures the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The police cannot force you to speak, however "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." If you say something to the police after being read your rights, it can be brought up if you are taken to trial. Lastly, "you have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you." This means that no matter what, you will be provided legal counsel to help you understand exactly what is going on. This helps reinforce the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause. With that being said, why is any of it even important? If there are already amendments to protect citizens, why is there a separate warning? The issue arose because of unethical tactics being used by law enforcement to elicit confessions from suspects after hours of brutal interrogation.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Safeguards Policy
    YORK-POQUOSON SHERIFF’S OFFICE GENERAL ORDERS SUBJECT: Constitutional Safeguards NUMBER: GO 2-1 EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 2018 REVIEW DATE: October 22, 2018 AMENDS/SUPERSEDES: GO 2-1, August 1, APPROVED:________________________ 2002 Sheriff VLEPSC: ADM.02.01, ADM.02.02, ADM.02.03, OPR.12.04 1 INDEX WORDS 2 3 Abandoned property 4 Authority; limitations 5 Confessions 6 Consent to search 7 Constitutional safeguards 8 Curtilage 9 Discretion 10 Eyewitnesses 11 Exigent circumstances searches 12 Hearsay 13 Interrogations 14 Interviews 15 Lineups 16 Miranda rights 17 Plain view search 18 Probable cause 19 Reasonable suspicion 20 Search and seizure; 21 Limitations 22 23 POLICY 24 25 The U. S. Constitution guarantees every citizen certain safeguards from government intrusion 26 into their lives. These safeguards have become the cornerstone for the application of criminal 27 justice in America. Consequently, these safeguards have placed limitations on the authority of 28 law enforcement to enforce federal, state, and local laws. The Sheriff expects deputies to act 29 with due regard for citizens' civil liberties. All parties that are hearing impaired or who do not 30 understand English will be afforded interpreters should a constitutional issue become apparent. 31 32 PURPOSE 33 34 The purpose of this general order is to define the legally mandated authority for the enforcement 35 of laws, to establish procedures for assuring compliance with constitutional requirements during 36 criminal investigations, to set forth guidelines concerning the use of discretion by deputies, and 37 to define the authority, guidelines and circumstances when deputies should exercise alternatives 38 to arrests and pre-trial confinement.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Summaries Miranda Rights
    Policy Summaries The Search and Seizure policies represent a detailed area of policing practices including technical procedures followed by law enforcement officers. Please refer to the specific General Police Orders (GPOs) to gain a better understanding of the policies in place. There are 5 separate policies contributing to Search and Seizure. These policies can be found on the city website. The 5 policies include: Search and Seizure Investigative Stops Probable Cause Arrest Miranda Rights Detainee Searches Miranda Rights Criteria • A suspect is in custody; AND • The officer is to question or interrogate the individual Miranda Warning • “You have the right to remain silent.” • “Anything you say can be used against you in court.” • “You have the right to an attorney prior to and during and questioning.” • “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you, if you wish.” • “You can decide at any time to exercise these rights and not answer any questions or make any statements.” Case Specific Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing Individuals • In the case of an individual who is deaf or hard of hearing or of Limited English Proficiency, the Miranda Warning shall be administered via a qualified interpreter consistent with General Police Order 1.3.38 on Communication with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) or Deaf/Hard of Hearing Individuals. Individuals with Limited English Proficiency • For LEP individuals, where possible, the officer shall use a “Your Rights” form that has been translated into the suspect’s primary language. Juveniles • Officers shall explain the Miranda Warning in an age-appropriate manner. • To ensure the juvenile understands his or her rights, the officer shall ask the individual to explain the advisements in his or her own words.
    [Show full text]
  • Police Trickery in Inducing Confessions Welsh S
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOLUME 127 JANuARY 1979 No. 8 POLICE TRICKERY IN INDUCING CONFESSIONS WELSH S. WHITE t I. INTRODUCTION: SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM Use of trickery or deceit in the questioning of criminal sus- pects is a staple of current police interrogation practices. The prevalence of this technique is attested to not only by its frequent appearance in reported cases,' but also, and perhaps more signifi- f Visiting Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania; Professor of Law, Uni- versity of Pittsburgh. B.A. 1962, Harvard University; LL.B. 1965, University of Pennsylvania. I am particularly indebted to Professor Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School for his interest, his guidance (including the many helpful suggestions he made upon reading an earlier draft of this Article), and his legal writings that have illuminated this area of the law for the past two decades. I am also indebted to Professor Louis B. Schwartz of the University of Pennsylvania Law School for his helpful criticism on an earlier draft of this Article, and to David Cicola, a third year student at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law for his excellent research assistance. 1 In three of the most recent Supreme Court cases dealing with the admissibility of confessions, it appears that the confessions were obtained at least in part by police trickery. See Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) (confession obtained after deeply religious murder suspect heard "Christian burial" speech); Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977) (per curiam) (confession obtained after police falsely told suspect that his fingerprints had been found at the scene of the crime); Michigan v.
    [Show full text]
  • When Terry Met Miranda: Two Constitutional Doctrines Collide
    Fordham Law Review Volume 63 Issue 3 Article 2 1994 When Terry Met Miranda: Two Constitutional Doctrines Collide Mark A. Godsey Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mark A. Godsey, When Terry Met Miranda: Two Constitutional Doctrines Collide, 63 Fordham L. Rev. 715 (1994). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol63/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. When Terry Met Miranda: Two Constitutional Doctrines Collide Cover Page Footnote Associate, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Chicago. Panel Attorney, Federal Defender Program, Northern District of Illinois. B.S., Northwestern University, 1990; J.D., The Ohio State University College of Law, 1993. 1 would like to thank Kristin D. Godsey and Mitch Matorin for their help in preparing this Article. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol63/iss3/2 WHEN TERRY MET MIRANDA: TWO CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINES COLLIDE MARK A. GODSEY* INTRODUCTION IN the 1984 case of Berkemer v. McCarty,' the United States Supreme Court stated that Miranda warnings2 are not required dur- ing Terry stops3 or other investigatory detentions analogous to Terry stops. 4 This statement made perfect sense at the
    [Show full text]