Taveras v. K&D Equip. Leasing Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant was not in police custody even though he could not have expected to be able to “roam free” following his choice to end the interview”
• finding no custodial interrogation where two sheriff’s deputies interviewed inmate in a jail conference room for five to seven hours
• emphasizing “undisputed fact that respondent was told that he was free to end the questioning and to return to his cell”
• characterizing an interview’s duration of “between five and seven hours in the evening” as lending only “some support” to a determination of custody (emphasis added)
• discussing the freedom- of-movement inquiry used to determine whether a defendant is in custody
• “Miranda adopted a set of prophylactic measures designed to ward off the inherently compelling pressures of custodial interrogation . . . .” (simplified)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).