UT: Being hospitalized having been shot by police isn’t “custody” for Miranda purposes

A person hospitalized after having been shot by the police is not per se “in custody” for Miranda purposes. The reason for the shooting was the safety of the officers and others, not custody. Tennessee v. Garner isn’t even close, and it is really distinguishable. State v. Jessop, 2023 Utah App. LEXIS 137 (Nov. 16, 2023).

Defendant had standing to challenge the search of another person’s property that he spent the previous night at and kept some clothes and did laundry there. Pole camera surveillance put him there overnight, too. The warrant particularly described “electronic equipment” and “electronic devices including cell phones.” There was also probable cause for the warrant. United States v. Spruell-Ussery, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204553 (D. Kan. Nov. 15, 2023).*

Defendant’s stop was constitutional. Even if it wasn’t, his statements to the officer were sufficiently attenuated from the stop to be admissible. United States v. Drayton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205329 (N.D. Iowa Nov. 16, 2023).*

Defendant’s statements were inadmissible in the government’s case in chief, but they can be used for impeachment if defendant testifies. United States v. King, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205372 (D. Nev. Nov. 16, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Attenuation, Custody, Particularity, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.