45 Mich. App. 156 - People v. Toler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is no dispute here concerning the issue of custody or lack of Miranda warnings. The defendant had been shot, handcuffed, and patted down for weapons; he was in custody. No warnings were given. However, there is a serious question as to whether this was the type of interrogation that Miranda was intended to cover. “Generally, the police cannot ask an arrested suspect any questions without first warning him of his constitutional rights. The case at bar is, however, a limited exception to this general rule. People v. Ramos, 17 Mich. App. 515 , 518 [, 170 N.W.2d 189 ] (1969), spoke to this issue in light of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ; 88 S.Ct. 1868 ; 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968): “ ‘The police were not obligated to advise the defendant of his constitutional rights before making an effort to disarm him to prevent him from injuring the police officers or someone else present. Police officers are not required to take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties.’ In Ramos defendant’s wife had told the police that defendant had a gun, with which he had threatened her. The police approached defendant in a bar and asked, ‘Where is the gun, John?’ Defendant responded that it was in his belt. Both the conversation and the weapon were properly admitted at this trial for carrying a concealed weapon. “The facts in the case at bar are somewhat different. Here the police knew defendant had had a gun because they saw it in his hand when he ran into the scout car. Defendant had not stop”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Roadenbaugh

2. ““There was only a single question probably aimed at protecting the officers. The objected-to matter pertained to the location of the gun, previously seen by the officers — the logical import of this is that the officers were concerned with their safety and not with building a case against defendant.” 45 Mich.App. at 161 , 206 N.W.2d at 255 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hudson