Arizona v. mauro. Justia › US Law › Case Law › Arizona Case Law › Arizona Court o...

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S. Ct. 1602,

Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder for the death of 17 -year-old Donald Rector, who died in a fire set in the mobile home where he lived with Seibert. Several days after the fire, Seibert was interrogated by a police officer. The officer initially withheld her Miranda warnings, hoping to get a confession from her first.Arizona v. Mauro (decided May 4, 1987) addressed the issue of fifth amendment protection against self­ incrimination. The petitioner, con­ victed of child abuse and the murder of his son and sentenced to death, had been taken into custody by police and was twice warned of his Miranda rights. While in the police station, his wifeRoberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988) Arizona v. Roberson No. 87-354 Argued March 29, 1988 Decided June 15, 1988 486 U.S. 675 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA Syllabus Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, 451 U. S. 484 -485, held that a suspect who has "expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel is not …Our Arizona retirement tax friendliness calculator can help you estimate your tax burden in retirement using your Social Security, 401(k) and IRA income. Calculators Helpful Guides Compare Rates Lender Reviews Calculators Helpful Guides Lea...Arizona and in Rhode Island v. Innis." Arizona v. Mauro, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 1936 n. 6, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987). Mauro was not subjected to compelling influences, psychological ploys, or direct questioning. Thus, his volunteered statements cannot properly be considered the result of police interrogation.1. Whether the interaction between police officers and petitioner after his indictment, in which petitioner made a voluntary statement without having received the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), rendered his subsequent statements inadmissible under the Sixth Amendment. 2.The lower court in Arizona admitted the recorded statement against Mauro to rebut his claim of insanity. Subsequently, the lower court convicted Mauro of child abuse and first …Defining Interrogation Under Miranda-Arizona v. Mauro 1988 Attorney endorsements. Received (1) Given (1) Endorse Wendel. Jeffrey Wagoner Criminal defense Attorney | Jun 30 Relationship: Fellow lawyer in community "Scott is a great attorney and a very good person. Criminal law is his specialty and I would refer a client of mine to him without …Justia › US Law › Case Law › Arizona Case Law › Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions Decisions › 2011 › STATE OF ARIZONA v. MAURO ACUNA MAURO ACUNA MAURO ACUNACf. Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529 (1987) (“Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence.” (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478)). The evidence here, however, does not show this type of coordination.Arizona v. Washington. No. 76-1168. Argued October 31, 1977. Decided February 21, 1978. 434 U.S. 497. Syllabus. After respondent was found guilty of murder, the Arizona trial court granted a new trial because the prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. At the beginning of the new trial, the trial judge, after extended ...[Cite as State v. Tucker, 2003-Ohio-6056.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DOUGLAS TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant. : : : : : APPEAL NO. C-020821 TRIAL NO. B-0205503 D E C I S I O N. Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of …United States v Bajakajian. court ruled that excess fines are limited under the 8th amendment's excessive fines clause; punishments must be proportional to their crimes. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Arizona v Fulminante, Arizona v Mauro, Ashcraft v Tennessee and more.Arizona Respondent Mauro Docket no. 85-2121 Decided by Rehnquist Court Lower court Arizona Supreme Court Citation 481 US 520 (1987) Argued Mar 31, 1987 Decided May …Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. at 526-27 (1987). The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court, which had held that the tape recording of the conversation Mauro had with his wife should not have been admitted at trial. The Court stated that Mauro had not been subjected to the functional equivalent of ...Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S. Ct. 1682, 1689, 64 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1980), cited with approval in Arizona v. Mauro, --- U.S. ----, 107 S. Ct. 1931, 1935, 95 L. Ed. 2d 458 (1987). Questions by a prison official, even a physician's assistant, asking a prisoner to identify a white package that fell from his pants following a prison-mandated ...Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 526 (1987). In Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980), the Court defined the phrase "functional equivalent" of express questioning to include "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) [496 ...In the case of Arizona V Mauro the Court held that a suspect who had requested for an attorney was not 'interrogated' by bringiing his wife instead who was also a suspect to speak with him in police presence. The dissent argued that the police had exploited the wife's request to talk to the husband in a custodial setting to create a sitiation ...Sep 26, 2008 · In Arizona v. Mauro (1987) 481 U.S. 520 [ 95 L.Ed.2d 458] (Mauro) the defendant Mauro was taken into custody and read his Miranda rights. He refused to answer any questions until a lawyer was present. Mauro's wife, who was being questioned in another room, asked to speak with him. Arizona No. 79-5269 Argued November 5, 1980 Decided May 18, 1981 451 U.S. 477 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA Syllabus After being arrested on a state criminal charge, and after being informed of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, petitioner was questioned by the police on January 19, 1976, until he said ...Miranda V. Arizona Offense Specific Periodical Questioning Sixth Amendment Supreme Court ... U.S. Reports: Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987). Contributor: Supreme Court of the United States - Powell, Lewis F., Jr Date: 1986 ...The caller stated that a man had entered the store claiming to have killed his son. When officers reached the store, respondent Mauro freely admitted that he had killed his son. He directed the officers to the child's body, and then was arrested and advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Mauro was convicted of murder and child abuse, and sentenced to death. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed. 149 Ariz. 24, 716 P.2d 393 (1986). It found that by allowing Mauro to speak with his wife in the presence of a police officer, the detectives interrogated Mauro within the meaning of Miranda.A later Court applied Innis in Arizona v. Mauro 14 Footnote 481 U.S. 520 (1987). to hold that a suspect who had requested an attorney was not “interrogated” when the police instead brought the suspect’s wife, who also was a suspect, to speak with him in the police’s presence. The majority emphasized that the suspect’s wife had asked ... Office Telephone: (561) 688-7759 Facsimile: (561) 688-7771 Counsel of AppelleeOwning a lifted truck in Arizona can be both thrilling and practical. These powerful vehicles are perfect for off-roading adventures, hauling heavy loads, and making a statement on the road.State v. Beaty, 158 Ariz. 232, 241, 762 P.2d 519, 528 (1988) (statements to state psychiatrist volunteered by defendant and not elicited through police interrogation were admissible without Miranda warnings). In fact, the Supreme Court found that "Mauro never waived his right to have a lawyer present." Arizona v.Arizona v. Mauro (1987) Insanity defense thwarted due to his wife's visit and Advising her not to speak until a lawyer was present. Officers do not interrogate a subject simply by hoping he will incriminate himself. Pennsylvania V Muniz. arrested for DWI and no Miranda given. Take him to a booking Center where he was videotaped. asked various ...See Hendrix, 509 F.3d at 374 (quoting Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529 (1987); U.S. v. Jackson, 189 F.3d 502, 510 (7th Cir. 1999)). Finally, the Seventh Circuit has “held that merely reciting the evidence against a suspect is not the functional equivalent of an interrogation.”Case Name: Miranda V. Arizona Summary: Ernesto Miranda was a suspect, arrested, and sentenced in 1963 for the kidnapping and rape of a young woman. Due to a previous history and arrests of peeping tom and rape, Miranda was characterized and chosen during a line-up. (Mauro, 2006).Justice Powell, writing for the Court in Arizona v. Mauro, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S. Ct. 1931, 1936-37 (1987), explained that the purpose of Miranda and Innis is to prevent "government officials from using the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment."Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529 (1987). "There were no accusatory statements or questions posed by law enforcement officials." United States v. De La Luz Gallegos, 738 F.2d 378, 380 (10th Cir. 1984). Officer Gonzales took a direct route from the pickup where the evidence was found, to his patrol car where he intended to secure it.6 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT A Pulaski County jury found Appellant, Patrice Seibert, guilty of second-degree murder, Section 565.021, RSMo. The Honorable Douglas E. Long, Jr., sentenced Ms.ARIZONA, Petitioner v. William Carl MAURO. No. 85-2121. Argued March 31, 1987. Decided May 4, 1987. Rehearing Denied June 26, 1987. See 483 U.S. 1034, 107 S.Ct. 3278. Syllabus After being advised of his Miranda rights while in custody for killing his son, respondent stated that he did not wish to answer any questions until a lawyer was present. Free Essay on United States v. Mauro at lawaspect.com. Free law essay examples to help law students. 100% Unique Essays. Lawaspect.com. ... Arizona v. Mauro ; Fex v. Michigan - Oral Argument - December 08, 1992 ; Booth v. Churner - Oral Argument - March 20, 2001Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299. Flatley was an attempted money grab, where the attorney acted so horrifically it was considered to be extortion. I will set forth the details at length because one must fully appreciate the conduct of Mauro in order to fully understanding the holding of Flatley.Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Miranda v Arizona (1966) Facts, Miranda v Arizona (1966) Precedent, Yarborough v Alvarado (2004) Facts and more.U.S. Reports: Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987). Names Powell, Lewis F., Jr. (Judge) Supreme Court of the United States (Author) Created / Published 1986 Headings - Law - Law Library - Supreme Court - United States - Government Documents - Judicial review and appeals - Crime and law enforcement - Homicide - Crimes against childrenArizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 526-27, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 1935 (1987). ¶16 Defendant argues that he did not voluntarily initiate the post-Miranda discussion. He contends the detectives employed the warrant as a tool to get him to talk. The warrant, in conjunction with McIndoo s statement that Defendant probably already knew what happened, caused ...• Arizona v. Mauro—∆ indicated desire to remain silent. Police allowed his wife, upon her request, to talk to him. Officer was present and tape-recorded conversation. Police admitted: they knew incriminating statements were likely be made if conversation took place. Held: No interrogation. • Illinois v. Perkins—police placed undercover agent in cell of ∆, who was …Solar rebates can help you save thousands on a new solar system. This guide reviews all the solar incentives for Arizona residents to help them go solar sooner. Expert Advice On Improving Your Home Videos Latest View All Guides Latest View ...What Court did Miranda v. Arizona go through? The case went to trial in an Arizona state court and the prosecutor used the confession as evidence against Miranda, who was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda's attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction.It comes from Miranda v. Arizona , a United States Supreme Court case that established that the government may not use statements stemming from "custodial interrogation" unless it is shown that "procedural safeguards" existed and were effective enough to offset the coercive nature of police-dominated interrogations. [3]Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 526-27, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 1935 (1987). ¶16 Defendant argues that he did not voluntarily initiate the post-Miranda discussion. He contends the detectives employed the warrant as a tool to get him to talk. The warrant, in conjunction with McIndoo s statement that Defendant probably already knew what happened, caused ...• Arizona v. Mauro—∆ indicated desire to remain silent. Police allowed his wife, upon her request, to talk to him. Officer was present and tape-recorded conversation. Police admitted: they knew incriminating statements were likely be made if conversation took place. Held: No interrogation. • Illinois v. Perkins—police placed undercover agent in cell of ∆, who was …In Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 107 S. Ct. 1931, 95 L. Ed. 2d 458 (1987), the accused admitted to law enforcement officers that he had just killed his son. He directed the police to the child's body and then stated, after being given his Miranda rights, that he did not want to talk any further without a lawyer.Justice Powell, writing for the Court in Arizona v. Mauro, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S. Ct. 1931, 1936-37 (1987), explained that the purpose of Miranda and Innis is to prevent "government officials from using the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment."Opinion for State v. Mauro, 766 P.2d 59, 159 Ariz. 186 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.See Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529-30 (1987) ("In deciding whether particular police conduct is interrogation, we must remember the purpose behind our decisions in Miranda and Edwards: preventing government officials from using the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment.").1966, in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court laid down clearer guidelines for police and courts to follow. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ... Arizona v. Mauro (1987). Arrested for killing his son, Mauro declined to answer any questions without a lawyer. The police let his wife in to talk with him, but theyArizona v. Mauro 481 U.S. 520 (1987) Rogers v. Richmond 365 U.S. 534 (1961) United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 428 U.S. 543 (1976) Arizona v. Johnson 555 U.S. 323 (2009) United States v. Miller 425 U.S. 435 (1976) Jones v. United States ... Arizona v. Fulminante 499 U.S. 279 (1991) Stovall v. Denno 388 U.S. 293 (1967) United States v. Henry 447 …Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987). B. In this case, the State challenges the suppression of five parts of a police-station dialogue between Mr. Lantz and officers after he had invoked his right to counsel.Sep 26, 2008 · In Arizona v. Mauro (1987) 481 U.S. 520 [ 95 L.Ed.2d 458] (Mauro) the defendant Mauro was taken into custody and read his Miranda rights. He refused to answer any questions until a lawyer was present. Mauro's wife, who was being questioned in another room, asked to speak with him. 1966, in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court laid down clearer guidelines for police and courts to follow. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) In this case, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken to a police station. A witness ... d. Arizona v. Mauro (1987). Arrested for killing his son, Mauro declined to answer any questions …See Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987). Defendant's demeanor and hand gestures were not protected under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ... This Court recently addressed this very issue in State v. Ramirez, 2018-NMSC-003, ¶ 33, 409 P.3d 902, in which we held that "[i]t is only ...( Arizona v. Mauro [ (1987) 481 U.S. 520,] 527 [107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458]; Rhode Island v. Innis, supra, [446 U.S.] at p. 301 .)" ( People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 554, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 96, 115 P.3d 417.) To determine defendant's likely perception, the statement at issue must be considered in context. Defendant is highly unlikely ...Is there a right to remain silent in civil cases? In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case called McCarthy v. Arndstein. Among other holdings, the court ruled: "The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination applies to civil proceedings."You must assert the right yourself and indicate you refuse to answer on the grounds your reply may incriminate you.7. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 445 (emphasis added); id. at 444, 467, 477, 478. 8. See Dripps, supra note 5, at 701 ("subversive interpretation" is inconsistent with principled constitutionalism). 9. See F. ATTEN, TE DECLINE OF THE REHABLITATIvE IDEAL 88 (1981) (decline in public con-See also Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 531, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 1937, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (police "interrogated" suspect by allowing him to converse with his wife "at a time when they knew [the conversation] was reasonably likely to produce an incriminating statement"). Muniz's apparent intoxication, then, and the ...Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. at 526-27 (1987). The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court, which had held that the tape recording of the conversation Mauro had with his wife should not have been admitted at trial. The Court stated that Mauro had not been subjected to the functional equivalent of ...Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529-30, 107 S. Ct. 1931, 1936, 95 L. Ed. 2d 458 (1987). The police did not exercise their potentially coercive power to obtain a confession, and I *1058 do not believe that constitutional protections would be perverted by the district court's admission of Ybarra's statements.ARIZONA, Petitioner v. William Carl MAURO. No. 85-2121. Argued March 31, 1987. Decided May 4, 1987. Rehearing Denied June 26, 1987. See 483 U.S. 1034, 107 S.Ct. 3278. Syllabus. After being advised of his Miranda rights while in custody for killing his son, respondent stated that he did not wish to answer any questions until a lawyer was present ...What Court did Miranda v. Arizona go through? The case went to trial in an Arizona state court and the prosecutor used the confession as evidence against Miranda, who was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda's attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction.officer involved." I14n Mauro th, Coure attemptet to resolvd thie s uncertainty.16 III. Arizona v Mauro . A. Facts and Case History In Mauro th, defendane wat s arreste fod beatinr hig infans sot n to death Afte. thr e polic advisee hidm of hi Mirandas rights he , indicated tha ht e did not wan t t o answe anr y questions an, d tha ht eCompare Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 527 (107 SC 1931, 95 LE2d 458) (1987). Defendant had retained an attorney but he initiated the discussions with the law enforcement personnel. They only furnished him a willing audience for his story and engaged in no attempt to interrogate him or elicit information from him. Defendant ignored their ...Get free summaries of new Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One - Unpublished Opinions opinions delivered to your inbox!Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 526 (1987). In Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980), the Court defined the phrase "functional equivalent" of express questioning to include "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit ...Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987) Arizona v. Mauro. No. 85-2121. Argued March 31, 1987. Decided May 4, 1987. 481 U.S. 520. Course. After being advised of his Miranda rights while in custody for killing his sons, respondent stated so his did not wishing to answer any questions until a counselor was present. All questioning then discontinued and ...State v. Mauro. We initially reversed the convictions, vacated the sentences, and remanded to the trial court for further… Arizona v. Mauro. Pp. 525-530. 149 Ariz. 24, 716 P.2d 393, reversed and remanded.Terry Lynn McCUTCHEON, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the STATE of Arizona, In and For the COUNTY OF PIMA; Hon. Thomas Meehan, Judge of the Superior Court, Division Sixteen, Respondents, and STATE of Arizona, Attorney General's Office, Steven LaMar, Real Party of Interest. ... U.S. v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 359, 98 S. Ct. 1834, 1846, 56 L. Ed ...Jennifer is a partner at Larsen, Edlund, and Ernest,PC. A gratude of Loyola University School of Law, she was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1999. Jennifer was admitted as a member of the bar for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, in 1999; U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, in 2001; and the United States Supreme Court in 2003.Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (5 times) Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (3 times) Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (3 times) View All Authorities Share Support FLP . CourtListener is a project of Free Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. We rely on donations for our financial security. ...Arizona No. 79-5269 Argued November 5, 1980 Decided May 18, 1981 451 U.S. 477 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA Syllabus After being arrested on a state criminal charge, and after being informed of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, petitioner was questioned by the police on January 19, 1976, until he said ...Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his duly executed, open-court jury waiver is unpreserved (see People v. Johnson, 51 N.Y.2d 986, 435 N.Y.S.2d 713, 416 N.E.2d 1048 [1980] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.v. Mauro, 149 Ariz. 24, 716 P.2d 393, 400 (1986) (en banc). 3. Mauro 716 P.2d at 400. In making its determination, the Arizona court looked solely at the intent of the police. Id. The Arizona court compared a suspect's right to silence until he speaks with an attorney under the fifth amendment, U.S. CONST. amend. V, with a suspect'sStudy with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)., Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and more. Home. Subjects. Expert solutions. ... Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987). Family ties. No state action where cops allowed a suspect and wife to speak ...United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004) ..... Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004)..... Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) ..... Navarette v ...See Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529-30 (1987) ("In deciding whether particular police conduct is interrogation, we must remember the purpose behind our decisions in Miranda and Edwards: preventing government officials from using the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment.").In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that imposing the death penalty for murders committed by a person who was younger than age 16 at the time of the offense constituted cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.See Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529-30 (1987) ("In deciding whether particular police conduct is interrogation, we must remember the purpose behind our decisions in Miranda and Edwards: preventing government officials from using the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained …ARIZONA, Petitioner v. William Carl MAURO. No. 85-2121. Argued March 31, 1987. Decided May 4, 1987. Rehearing Denied June 26, 1987. See 483 U.S. 1034, 107 S.Ct. 3278. Syllabus After being advised of his Miranda rights while in custody for killing his son, respondent stated that he did not wish to answer any questions until a lawyer was present.Get free access to the complete judgment in Silva v. State on CaseMine.See full list on loc.gov Get Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee.Browse Rapid City Journal obituaries, conduct other obituary searches, offer condolences/tributes, send flowers or create an online memorial.. legal issues de novo . . . . " State v. Moody,Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 526 (1987). Th Office Telephone: (561) 688-7759 Facsimile: (561) 688-7771 Counsel of Appellee Arizona v. Mauro (1987) Mauro enters store Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987). Avukatlık Kanunu [Advocacy Code] 1136 A.K. § 6 (1969). Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality: constitutional rights and their … determination may relate to questioning in a variety of locations...

Continue Reading