context: The Utah Court of Appeals concluded that effective safeguards other than the Miranda warnings may be constitutionally permissible. In particular, it concluded that the presence of counsel at Mr. Vos's interrogation adequately substituted for Miranda warnings.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 384 U.S. 466, 466
citation_a.parenthetical: "The presence of counsel ... would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self-incrimination]."
citation_a.sentence: Vos, 164 P.3d at 1263; see Miranda, 384 U.S. at 466, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (“The presence of counsel ... would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self-incrimination].”); see also Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485-86, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) (“The Fifth Amendment right identified in Miranda is the right to have counsel present at any custodial interrogation.”); Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 112-13, 116-17, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975) (“Miranda held that any confession obtained when not preceded by the required warnings or an adequate substitute safeguard was per se inadmissible in evidence.... [L]anguage in Miranda suggests that the presence of counsel is the only appropriate alternative”); United States v. Guariglia, 757 F.Supp. 259, 264 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (“[I]f Miranda warnings are meant to protect a defendant until he can consult counsel, ... they are not necessary when counsel is present.”); Com. v. Simon, 456 Mass. 280, 923 N.E.2d 58, 67 (2010), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 181, 178 L.Ed.2d 108 (2010).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 423 U.S. 96, 112-13, 116-17
citation_b.parenthetical: "Miranda held that any confession obtained when not preceded by the required warnings or an adequate substitute safeguard was per se inadmissible in evidence.... [L]anguage in Miranda suggests that the presence of counsel is the only appropriate alternative"
citation_b.sentence: Vos, 164 P.3d at 1263; see Miranda, 384 U.S. at 466, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (“The presence of counsel ... would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self-incrimination].”); see also Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485-86, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) (“The Fifth Amendment right identified in Miranda is the right to have counsel present at any custodial interrogation.”); Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 112-13, 116-17, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975) (“Miranda held that any confession obtained when not preceded by the required warnings or an adequate substitute safeguard was per se inadmissible in evidence.... [L]anguage in Miranda suggests that the presence of counsel is the only appropriate alternative”); United States v. Guariglia, 757 F.Supp. 259, 264 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (“[I]f Miranda warnings are meant to protect a defendant until he can consult counsel, ... they are not necessary when counsel is present.”); Com. v. Simon, 456 Mass. 280, 923 N.E.2d 58, 67 (2010), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 181, 178 L.Ed.2d 108 (2010).