Lorch v. Super. Ct.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that an officer interrogates a person when the officer asks an express question or makes a statement or takes an action that the officer should know is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
• stating that an officer interrogates a person when the officer asks an express question or makes a statement or takes an action that the officer should know is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
• observing that express questions ask for or invite a response
• “[W]e do not believe that this difference alone requires a different outcome.”
• “However, Miranda [v Arizona, 384 US 436; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966)] also clarified that voluntarily given confessions that are not the result of impermissible custodial interrogations remain admissible.”
• “[T]o the extent that the officer’s statement can even be reasonably viewed as a question, this particular question does not seem intended to generate an incriminating response. Instead, if anything, the officer was simply trying to ensure that defendant heard and understood him.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).