Custodial engineering: cleaning up the scope of Miranda custody during coercive Terry stops

Article Abstract:

Miranda warnings should not be required in Terry stops, although recent rulings by the Tenth and Seventh Circuits have held otherwise. Courts concerned about coerciveness in Terry stops should apply the Fourth and Fifth Amendments instead, while preserving Terry stops as an exception to the Miranda ruling. Terry v. Ohio applies to non-custodial police inquiries in the field, whereas the Miranda rule relates to custodial interrogations at the police station. Guidelines could be developed for police officers conducting Terry stops to more clearly distinguish protective steps needed to secure the situation from coercion during interrogation.

Interpretation and construction, Police questioning

---

Prison cells, leg restraints, and "custodial interrogation": Miranda's role in crimes that occur in prison

Article Abstract:

Miranda warnings are rarely given during custodial interrogations in relation to crimes occurring in prison because of the difficulty of applying the concept of 'custody' in the prison context. A focus test, requiring Miranda warnings when an inmate becomes the focus of suspicion during investigation of a crime, would provide a clearer standard. A prison administration exception, analogous to the current public safety exception, should apply in dangerous situations, as when a weapon is unaccounted for. In addition, blanket Miranda warnings should be posted to increase prisoners' awareness of their rights.

Prisoners, Prisoners' rights

---

Mistake of law in mala prohibita crimes

Article Abstract:

The mistake of law defense should be expanded so that it is a valid defense to all malum prohibitum crimes with an intent requirement of recklessness or higher. The maxim that ignorance of the law is no defense is unrealistic in light of the wide range of conduct that has been criminalized in federal law. No citizen can be presumed to know of all malum prohibitum laws, so some knowledge of illegality should be required. To allow mistake as a defense serves to ensure culpability, due process and application of the rule of lenity.

United States, Criminal intent, Mistake (Criminal law)

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Fiscal distress and politics: the bankruptcy filing of Bridgeport as a case study in reclaiming local sovereignty
• Abstracts: Protectionism versus free trade: implementing the GATT antidumping agreement in the United States. Binding the states: a survey of state law conformance with the standards of the GATT Procurement Code
• Abstracts: When does going to the doctor serve the public health? Medical monitoring response costs under CERCLA. Market forces and union decline: a response to Paul Weiler

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.