To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Stansbury v. California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robert Edward Stansbury v. California
Argued March 30, 1994
Decided April 26, 1994
Full case nameRobert Edward Stansbury v. California
Citations511 U.S. 318 (more)
114 S. Ct. 1526; 128 L. Ed. 2d 293
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted; Calif. Sup. Ct. affirms
SubsequentCase 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
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Harry Blackmun · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Case opinions
Per curiam
ConcurrenceBlackmun
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a police officer's subjective and undisclosed opinion whether a person who had been questioned was a suspect was relevant in determining whether that person had been in custody and thus entitled to the Miranda warnings.[1] In a 9–0 ruling, the Court reversed and remanded the case. In 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]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    314
  • H. Tayloe Stansbury Executive VP and CTO Intuit

Transcription

References

  1. ^ a b Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994).

External links

This page was last edited on 10 January 2022, at 23:34
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.