Shatzer. Without Miranda, the Court would never have established the Edwards Rule, a rule designed to protect the rights established in Miranda. Missouri At that time, Shatzer was incarcerated at the Maryland Correctional Institution-Hagerstown, serving a sentence for an unrelated child-sexual-abuse offense. Legal Compass includes access to our exclusive industry reports, combining the unmatched expertise of our analyst team with ALM’s deep bench of proprietary information to provide insights that can’t be found anywhere else. Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Shatzer initially waived his Miranda rights but afterwards demanded an attorney, at which point Blankenship ended the interview. This was, by far, one of the most useful classes I've attended since becoming an investigator. Blankenship clarified the purpose of his visit, and Shatzer declined to speak without an attorney. The court found here that the officers went to defendant’s work, handcuffed him, searched for weapons, and transported him back to the station. A suspect in custody who is not subjected to interrogation does not have to be advised of his rights. The Court indicated that the 14-day “lingering effects” rule that it establishes “meets Shatzer's concern that a break-in-custody rule lends itself to police abuse. Before asking any questions, Blankenship reviewed Shatzer’s The suspect’s ability to return to a place of refuge permits the suspect to resume a place of comfort where he no longer is subject to the coercive pressures of the police.
The Edwards Rules prohibits further interrogation of a suspect who has made an unambiguous request for counsel unless counsel is present or unless the suspect initiates the discussion with the police and waives his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. At the time, Mr. Shatzer was incarcerated on an unrelated offense involving sexual abuse of another child. Law Firm Culture Will Determine Whether Younger Attorneys Sink, Swim or Simply Float Away. District of Columbia In Maryland v.King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013), the United States Supreme Court decided that a cheek swab of an arrestee's DNA is comparable to fingerprinting and therefore, a legal police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.. Illinois

v. MICHAEL BLAINE SHATZER, Sr. No. Dynamically explore and compare data on law firms, companies, individual lawyers, and industry trends. Shatzer argued that the second interrogation violated the Edwards Rule (a rule established in Edwards v. Arizona2). North Dakota 1 In that case, the police had attempted to question Shatzer about allegations that he had molested his young son. Shatzer invoked his Miranda right to have counsel present during interrogation, so the detective terminated the interview. In the Shatzer case itself, the second interrogation of Shatzer occurred in a custodial situation. 08-680, filed 02/24/10).

As a result, the Edwards Rule remains in effect for fourteen days after the suspect’s release from custody. Bankruptcy Court Click to follow along with the contributions. The Edwards Rule, of course, is a rule that derives from the Miranda case itself. In order to protect adequately a suspect who has been released from custody from the continuing lingering coercive effects of that custody, the police must be prohibited from any interrogation of the suspect during the fourteen days following release (unless counsel is present or the suspect initiates the discussion). In 2006, upon further evidence, the police opened a new investigation on the same matter and re-interrogated Shatzer, who had remained incarcerated for an unrelated offense during the entire interval. Sponsored by: FTI Consulting Hawaii Sponsored by: FTI Consulting The suspect said that his grandmother told him in the intervening three hours that he should not have invoked. On Tuesday, the justices will hold their "long conference" after summer recess. If the suspect reinitiates questioning officers do not have to wait 14 days. Nevertheless, the best that can be said at this point is that it is unclear whether the police may interrogate a person in a non-custodial setting within 14 days of the release of that person from custody. New Jersey Contact Us / Great opportunity for advancement. A major concern of the Court in the Edwards case was that the police would attempt to wear down a suspect who had requested counsel by leaving the suspect alone for a while, approach him again later, advise him of his rights again, and attempt to obtain a waiver of those rights. Once the suspect requests a lawyer, the police may not question him again until he is given one, even if he later waives that right. Puerto Rico [6] See, for example, U.S. v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004); McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991); and Davis v. U.S., 512 U.S. 452 (1994).
Angry About Who Counts as Equity Partner? Sponsored by: FTI Consulting As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. WEBSITE BY. Iowa Kansas At the time, Mr. Shatzer was incarcerated on an unrelated offense involving sexual abuse of another child. Louisiana var myDate = new Date(parseInt(1601302532000)); The 2003 allegation was assigned to Detective Shane Blankenship, who went to interview Shatzer in prison. Similarly, a suspect who is interrogated but is not in custody also does not have to be advised of his rights. In 2003, Michael Shatzer (“Shatzer”), an inmate at the Maryland Correctional Institution, invoked his Miranda rights, refusing to speak about alleged sexual child abuse without an attorney present. Ohio Professor of Criminal Justice In the Supreme Court of the United States . Salary will be commensurate... Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. Terms of Service/ California New York In the prison context, the police may resume questioning an inmate after he has been released into the general prison population for fourteen days. On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland You two are an effective teaching team, and your presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized. In doing so, the Court noted the importance of voluntary confessions. Georgia In 2003, Michael Shatzer (“Shatzer”), an inmate at the Maryland Correctional Institution, invoked his Miranda rights, refusing to speak about alleged sexual child abuse without an attorney present. Remember, the 14 day clock begins when the suspect is released from Miranda custody. "The views expressed in this entry are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Encyclopedia of Law. The Court decided in Shatzer (admittedly somewhat arbitrarily) that these lingering effects would continue for fourteen days. Shatzer agreed to speak with the officer and made some incriminating statements. 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. Shatzer invoked his Miranda right to have counsel present during …

[4] 498 U.S. 146 (1990). There are other reasons to think that the Shatzer rule may not extend to non-custodial interrogations occurring within fourteen days of release from custody. Under this argument, the 14-day lingering effects rule creates a kind of legal fiction – that, for purposes of the Edwards Rule at least, a person subjected to custodial interrogation remains in custody for 14 days following release. Later that same day, officers developed additional probable cause and Bridgeford was rearrested about 3 hours after the initial interview. When Shatzer, who was in prison at the time, indicated that he did not want to speak to the investigating officer until he had counsel, the officer terminated the interrogation. Consulting Magazine identifies consultants that have the biggest impact on their clients, firms and the profession. In the last issue of the Bulletin, I discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in Maryland v. Shatzer (2010). My earlier statement of the Shatzer rule suggests that the rule applies to all attempts to interrogate a suspect during the fourteen days following the suspect’s release from custody, regardless of whether the interrogation takes place in a custodial or non-custodial situation. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces The interview ended when Bridgeford invoked his right to an attorney. Blankenship clarified the purpose of his visit, and Shatzer declined to speak without an attorney. Judicial Center Fifth Circuit Tailored just for you. Oklahoma

Defendant argued that the second interview was barred by the Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) 59 U.S. 98. The Miranda rules apply only to custodial interrogation.

Tenth Circuit