No. 21-6616

Gabriel Schaaf v. Tim Shoop, Warden

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-12-16
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure custodial-interrogation due-process in-custody-interrogation miranda-rights police-questioning right-to-counsel right-to-remain-silent
Key Terms:
DueProcess CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference: 2022-01-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether police must wait for counsel to be present, before questioning a suspect who has invoked his right to remain silent and to have counsel present, prior to questioning and prior to being 'in-custody'?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether police must wait for counsel to be present, before questioning a suspect who has invoked his right to remain silent and to have counsel present, prior to questioning and prior to being "in-custody"? 2. Whether armed detectives wearing bullet-proof vests, combind with summoning an ‘individual on his. own property to their presence, contributes to a show of authority escalating to the equivelant of an "in-custody" interrogation? 3. Whether police must wait for counsel to be present, before questioning a suspect who has invoked his right to remain silent and to have counsel present, prior to questioning and prior to being "in-custody"? 3b. And if not,*; how long must police wait to question again before they must Mirandize without counsel present?

Docket Entries

2022-01-10
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-12-20
Waiver of right of respondent Tim Shoop to respond filed.
2021-11-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 18, 2022)

Attorneys

Gabriel Schaaf
Gabriel Schaaf — Petitioner
Tim Shoop
Benjamin Michael FlowersOhio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent