State v. Deases

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “when a state official conducts a custodial interrogation that would require a Miranda warning if undertaken by a police officer, then the official is similarly required to give a Miranda warning”
• holding Miranda applied to interrogation of inmate by prison guard
• noting State concession to the existence of a professional relationship and applying test to a nurse’s 2 Section 622.10(1
• declining to apply the public safety exception while noting that the officer’s questions did not reflect only the limited purpose of asking about the potential threat to public safety
• presence of prison guard did not vitiate privilege where presence of guard was necessary for treatment — not a “casual observer”
• presence of correctional officers did not destroy patient-physician privilege when officers were necessary to protect medical staff and “to enable the defendant to obtain treatment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).