If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter.

1219 -1227, 175 L.Ed.2d, at 1052-1061. Because the Edwards presumption has been established by opinion of this Court, it is appropriate for this Court to specify the period of release from custody that will terminate its application. Argued October 5, 2009—Decided February 24, 2010 In 2003, a police detective tried to question respondent Shatzer, who was incarcerated at a Maryland prison pursuant to a prior conviction, about allegations that he had sexually abused his son. Case Name: Maryland v. Shatzer Date: 2010 Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the United States Rule: If a Defendant invokes his rights, and then experiences a break of 14 days or more from Miranda custody, the police have scrupulously honored his invocation, and may approach the Defendant for questioning again. Washington Cty., Md., Sept. 14, 2006), App.

After making this inculpatory statement, Shatzer requested an attorney, and Hoover promptly ended the interrogation.

MARYLAND v. SHATZER . In August 2003, a social worker assigned to the Child Advocacy Center in the Criminal Investigation Division of the Hagerstown Police Department referred to the de­partment allegations that respondent Michael Shatzer, Sr., had sexually abused his 3-year-old son.

Before asking any questions, Blankenship reviewed [175 L.Ed.2d 1051] Shatzer's. 1981). Shatzer was surprised because he thought that the investigation had been closed, but Hoover ex­plained they had opened a new file. The Court concludes that the appropriate period is 14 days, which provides ample time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, consult with friends and counsel, and shake off any residual coercive effects of prior custody.

In Edwards v. Arizona, the Supreme Court further clarified that once a suspect had invoked their right to have an attorney police questioning must cease. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. FACTS: In August 2003, a social worker referred allegations to the police that Michael

Prior to trial, Mr. Shatzer moved to suppress the confessions he made in the March 2006 interview arguing that his 2003 invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights was still applicable. The trial court refused to suppress those statements, reasoning that Ed­wards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 428 (1928) CASE BRIEF.

Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender of Maryland, Celia Anderson Davis, Counsel of Record, Brian L. Zavin, Assistant Public Defenders, Office of the Public Defender, Appellate Division, Baltimore, MD, for Respondent.

In 2003, a police detective tried to question respondent Shatzer, who was incarcerated at a Maryland prison pursuant to a prior conviction, about allegations that he had sexually abused his son. Pp. Toby J. Heytens, Washington, DC, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the petitioner. While I agree that the presumption from Edwards v.

2006) CASE BRIEF. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. Two years and six months later, the same social worker referred more specific allegations to the department about the same incident involving Shatzer. He and the social worker interviewed the victim, [130 S.Ct. Shatzer moved to suppress his March 2006 statements pursuant to Edwards. At no We consider whether a break in custody ends the pre­sumption of involuntariness established in. MARYLAND V. SHATZER. 1399 (2012) CASE BRIEF, GRAY V. MARYLAND 523 U.S. 185 (1998) CASE BRIEF. D agreed to a polygraph examination. Douglas F. Gansler, Baltimore, MD, for petitioner. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, I Agree to the End-User License Agreement.

Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial.

Under Edwards v. Arizona rendered the confession inadmissible.

Another detective reopened the investigation in 2006 and at­tempted to interrogate Shatzer, who was still incarcerated. ORLOWSKI V. MOORE 181 A.2d 692 (Pa. Super. Their continued detention is relatively dis­connected from their prior unwillingness to cooperate in an investiga­tion. unrelated child-sexual abuse offense. In 2003, a police detective tried to question respondent Shatzer, who was incarcerated at a Maryland prison pursuant to a prior conviction, about allegations that he had sexually abused his son. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p.___. Get Maryland v. Shatzer, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Before asking any questions, Blankenship reviewed [175 L.Ed.2d 1051] Shatzer's Miranda rights with him, and obtained a writ­ten waiver of those rights. 1215] Syllabus [*]. Hoover explained that he wanted to ask Shatzer about the alleged incident involving Shatzer's son. UNITED STATES V. RESENDIZ-PONCE 549 U.S. 102 (2007... RUSSELL V. UNITED STATES 369 U.S. 749 (1962) CASE ... COSTELLO V. UNITED STATES 350 U.S. 359 (1956) CASE... STATE V. CLARK 20 P.3d 300 (Utah 2001) CASE BRIEF.

Detective Paul Hoover, from the same division, was assigned to the inves­tigation. After reading D his Miranda rights and obtaining a written waiver,

Detective Shane Blankenship was assigned to the investigation and interviewed Shatzer at the correctional institution on August 7, 2003. Five days later, on March 7, 2006, Hoover and another detective met with Shatzer at the correctional facility to administer the polygraph examination. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p.___. SALLY BEAUTY CO., INC v. NEXXUS PRODUCTS CO., INC.... CONTINENTAL PURCHASING CO. v. VAN RAALTE CO. 251 A... ALLHUSEN v. CARISTO CONSTRUCTION CORP. 303 N.Y. 44... MICHAEL-CURRY CO. V. KNUTSON SHAREHOLDERS 449 N.W.... TRIDENT CENTER V. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURAN... PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. 2389, 101 L.Ed.2d 261, by "preventpng] police from badgering [him] into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights," Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 350, 110 S.Ct. Hoover explained that he wanted to ask Shatzer about the alleged incident involving Shatzer's son. MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. Michael Blaine SHATZER, Sr.. Douglas F. Gansler, Baltimore, MD, for petitioner. CASE BRIEF, STATE V. FETTERS 562 N.W.2d 770 (1997) CASE BRIEF, CLARK V. ARIZONA 548 U.S. 735 (2006) CASE BRIEF. 1409 (2013) CASE BRIEF, UNITED STATES V. JONES 132 S.Ct 945 (2012) CASE BRIEF, WOLF V. COLORADO 338 U.S. 25 (1949) CASE BRIEF. 571 (1919) CASE BRIEF, BASIC INC. v. LEVINSON 485 U.S. 224 (1988) CASE BRIEF. to his normal life for some time before the later attempted interrogation, there is little reason to think that his change of heart has been coerced. Accordingly, Blankenship ended the interview, and Shatzer was released back into the general prison population. 08-680 Argued: October 5, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2010.

In August 2003, a social worker assigned to the Child Advocacy Center in the Criminal Investigation Division of the Hagerstown Police Department referred to the de­partment allegations that respondent Michael Shatzer, Sr., had sexually abused his 3-year-old son. Shatzer [130 S.Ct. He and the social worker interviewed the victim, [130 S.Ct.

37... PEOPLE V. JEFFERS 41 Cal.App. Brief Analysis: Shatzer experienced a break… court held that 'the passage of time alone is insufficient to [end] the protections afforded 1176, 108 L.Ed.2d 293. point during the interrogation did D request to speak with an attorney or refer to his prior

1992) CASE ... UNITED STATES V. TURK 526 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 130 S.Ct.

Shatzer denied ordering his son to perform fellatio on him, but admitted to masturbat­ing in. CASE BRIEF. The Court of .Appeals of Maryland reversed, holding that the mere passage of time does not end the Edwards protections, and that, assuming, arguendo, a break-in-custody exception to Edwards existed, Shatzer's release back into the general prison population did not constitute such a break. his son from a distance of less than three feet. Pp. NEWMAN V. UNITED STATES 382 F.2d 479 (D.C.Cir. 08-680. 1219-1224, 175 L.Ed.2d, at 1052-1057.

585, 954 A.2d 1118, reversed and remanded. After reading Shatzer his Miranda rights and obtaining a written waiver, the other detective administered the test and concluded that Shatzer had failed. 08–680. The State's Attorney for Washington County charged Shatzer with second-degree sexual offense, sexual child abuse, second-degree assault, and contributing to condi­tions rendering a child in need of assistance. CASE... STATE v. Q.D. in need of assistance. address. In 2003, a police detective tried to question respondent Shatzer, who was incarcerated at a Maryland prison pursuant to a prior conviction, about allegations that he had sexually abused his son. 1213 (2010) NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over whether a break in custody has occurred when someone is being interrogated in prison for a different offense than the one they are incarcerated for. Before the interview ended, Shatzer agreed to Hoo­ver's request that he submit to a polygraph examination. Celia A. Davis, Baltimore, MD, for respondent. I didn't force him.'' I didn't force him.'" (a) Edwards created a presumption that once a suspect invokes the Miranda right to the presence of counsel, any waiver of that right in response to a subsequent police attempt at custodial interrogation is involuntary. 1962) C... STARLITE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V. LANDRY'S RESTAURAN... SYNNEX CORPORATION V. ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. ... INTERSTATE INDUSTRIES, INC. V. BARCLAY INDUSTRIES,... ZANAKIS-PICO V. CUTTER DODGE, INC. 47 P.3d 1222 (2... ARBITRON, INC. V. TRALYN BROADCASTING, INC. 400 F.... BALFOUR V. BALFOUR 2 K.B. Pp. NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over whether a break in custody has occurred when The trial court found D guilty of DORAN V. PETROLEUM MANAGEMENT CORP. 545 F.2d 893 (... ROBINSON V. GLYNN 349 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49. free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Onlinefor 2-3 days and free samples Shatzer in-

08-680 Argued: October 5, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2010. D had thought the officer was an attorney there to discuss MARYLAND v. SHATZER CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. Nancy S. Forster, Pub... Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined as to Part III.