Maryland v. Shatzer

Definition

Maryland v. Shatzer is a significant Supreme Court case decided in 2010 that addressed the limitations on police interrogation and the invocation of Miranda rights. The ruling clarified how long a suspect must be out of custody before law enforcement can re-initiate questioning, establishing a 14-day rule that protects a suspect's right to counsel while balancing the needs of law enforcement.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Maryland, allowing the police to re-initiate questioning after a suspect has been out of custody for 14 days.
2. The case arose when the defendant, Shatzer, had invoked his right to counsel during an initial interrogation but was later questioned again without an attorney present.
3. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing individual rights with law enforcement's need to investigate crimes effectively.
4. The 14-day rule was introduced to provide a clear guideline for law enforcement and protect suspects' rights under Miranda.
5. This case is important in understanding how courts interpret the boundaries of custodial interrogation and the protections offered by Miranda rights.

Review Questions

• What was the central issue in Maryland v. Shatzer and how did the Supreme Court address it?
  • The central issue in Maryland v. Shatzer was whether police could question a suspect after he had invoked his right to counsel. The Supreme Court addressed this by establishing a clear 14-day rule, stating that if a suspect has been out of custody for 14 days after invoking their rights, law enforcement can resume questioning without violating those rights. This decision aimed to clarify the limitations on interrogation practices while ensuring effective law enforcement.
• Analyze how the ruling in Maryland v. Shatzer impacts the application of Miranda rights in future cases.
  • The ruling in Maryland v. Shatzer significantly impacts the application of Miranda rights by introducing a definitive time frame within which law enforcement can question a suspect who previously invoked their right to counsel. This 14-day guideline helps both protect suspects' rights and provides clarity for police officers conducting interrogations. As such, future cases will likely reference this ruling when determining whether subsequent questioning after a prior invocation of rights was permissible.
• Evaluate the implications of the 14-day rule established by Maryland v. Shatzer on the balance between individual rights and law enforcement authority.
  • The 14-day rule established by Maryland v. Shatzer strikes a nuanced balance between individual rights and law enforcement authority by creating clear parameters for when police can resume questioning. This decision recognizes the need for protection against coercive interrogation tactics while also acknowledging law enforcement's necessity to gather evidence efficiently. By setting a specific time frame, the ruling encourages suspects to be aware of their rights while giving police a structured approach to investigations, potentially shaping future interactions between citizens and law enforcement.

Related terms

Miranda Rights: Legal rights that must be read to a suspect upon arrest, informing them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning.

Custodial Interrogation: A situation where a person is in custody and subjected to questioning by law enforcement, which requires adherence to Miranda rights.

Edwards v. Arizona: A 1981 Supreme Court case that established that once a suspect invokes their right to counsel, interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.