No. 21-6599
Jeffrey Clinton Michalik v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-rights custodial-interrogation fifth-amendment fourth-amendment law-enforcement-seizure miranda-warnings seizure
Key Terms:
CriminalProcedure
CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference:
2022-01-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the holding in Torres v. Madrid require Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : 1.Does the holding in Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989 (2021) : that the touching of an individual by law enforcement to guide or restrain movement is a seizure equivalent to a_ . common law arrest for Fourth Amendment analysis, now re: quire MIRANDA warnings before the ensuing custodial inter; rogation under the five factor Fifth Amendment analysis in United States v. Wright, 777 F. 3d. 769, (5th Cir.2015) . ¢ . : . . i . e i. .
Docket Entries
2022-01-24
Petition DENIED.
2022-01-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022.
2021-12-30
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-12-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 14, 2022)
Attorneys
Jeffrey C. Michalik
Jeffrey Clinton Michalik — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent