United States v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
777 F.3d 769 · 2015
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Edwards v. Arizona · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Doyle v. Ohio
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Custodial interrogation is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody. A suspect is “in custody” for Miranda purposes. when placed under formal arrest or when a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest. Two discrete inquiries are essential to the determination: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. The requisite restraint on freedom is greater than that required in the Fourth Amendment seizure context. The critical difference between the two concepts is that custody arises only if the restraint on freedom is a certain degree — the degree associated with formal arrest. Whether a suspect is “in custody” is an objective inquiry that depends on the “totality of circumstances.” The subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned are irrelevant. The reasonable person through whom we view the situation must be neutral to the environment and to the purposes of the investigation — that is, neither guilty of criminal conduct and thus overly apprehensive nor insensitive to the seriousness of the circumstances. Recognizing that no one fact is determinative, this court has repeatedly ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the length of the questioning; (2) the location of the questioning; (3) the accusatory, or non-accusatory nature of the questioning; (4) the amount of restraint on the individual's physical movement; (5) and statements made by officers regarding the individual's freedom to move or leave.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.