Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q18392816> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 32 of
32
with 100 triples per page.
- Q18392816 subject Q6996306.
- Q18392816 subject Q6996385.
- Q18392816 subject Q6997103.
- Q18392816 subject Q6997538.
- Q18392816 subject Q6998947.
- Q18392816 abstract "Stansbury v. California, No. 93-5770, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) is a US constitutional law case. The Supreme Court of the United States considered whether a police officer's subjective and undisclosed opinion whether a person who had been questioned was a suspect was relevant in determining whether that person had been in custody and thus entitled to the Miranda warnings. In a 9-0 ruling, the Court reversed and remanded the case. In a per curiam decision, the Court held that "an officer's subjective and undisclosed view concerning whether the person being interrogated is a suspect is irrelevant to the assessment [of] whether the person is in custody."".
- Q18392816 wikiPageExternalLink 1993_93_5770.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q11201.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q11698.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q1642249.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q2070065.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q240340.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q2629503.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q312199.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q384593.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996306.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996385.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q6997103.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q6997538.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q6998947.
- Q18392816 wikiPageWikiLink Q7892395.
- Q18392816 fullname "Robert Edward Stansbury v. California".
- Q18392816 type Case.
- Q18392816 type LegalCase.
- Q18392816 type SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase.
- Q18392816 type UnitOfWork.
- Q18392816 type Situation.
- Q18392816 type Thing.
- Q18392816 type Q2334719.
- Q18392816 comment "Stansbury v. California, No. 93-5770, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) is a US constitutional law case. The Supreme Court of the United States considered whether a police officer's subjective and undisclosed opinion whether a person who had been questioned was a suspect was relevant in determining whether that person had been in custody and thus entitled to the Miranda warnings. In a 9-0 ruling, the Court reversed and remanded the case.".
- Q18392816 label "Stansbury v. California".
- Q18392816 name "Robert Edward Stansbury v. California".