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 (from Petition)
1. Does the holding in Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989 (2021) that the torching 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 require MIRANDA warnings before the ensuing custodial interrogation under the five factor Fifth Amendment analysis in United States v. Wright, 777 F. 3d. 769, (5th Cir.2015)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the holding in Torres v. Madrid require Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation?
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