Protests 991956-G of Schimmel & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the violation was “flagrant” where the officer subjected the defendant to custodial interrogation by “repeatedly” questioning him after he had invoked his right to counsel
• concluding that the violation was \flagrant\ where the officer subjected the defendant to custodial interrogation by \repeatedly\ questioning the defendant using a drug recognition evaluation after the defendant had requested to speak with an attorney
• concluding that “the circumstances * * * mil- itate * * * in favor of suppression” because the “defendant was under compelling circumstances within 15 minutes of the initial encounter and was under arrest when he gave the urine sample”
• suppressing statements made and evidence obtained following suspect’s invocation of right to counsel when police use of statements was “inextrica- bly intertwined” with investigation
• suppressing statements made and evidence obtained following suspect’s invocation of right to counsel when police use of statements was “inextrica- bly intertwined” with investigation
• officers flagrantly violated Miranda by continuing to question a defendant after the defendant unequivocally invoked his right to counsel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).