Cincinnati Fed. S. & L. Co. v. McClain (Slip Opinion)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding police officer’s comments were not interrogation because they were not “anything other than a response to the defendant’s concerns”
• “the admissibility of statements obtained after an invocation of that right depends on whether the person’s right to cut off questioning was ‘scrupulously honored’ ”
• no functional equivalent of interrogation where police merely aware of possibility suspect may make incriminating statement
• police officer’s intent in asking the questions relevant to determining whether questions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating statement
• “[t]he ‘ “functional equivalence” test does not turn on the subjective intent of the particular police officer’ ”
• “the mere fact that a police officer may be aware that there is a ‘possibility’ that a suspect may make an incriminating statement is insufficient to establish the functional equivalent of interrogation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).