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
Latest Conference: 2022-01-07
Question Presented (from Petition)

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"?

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?

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"?

And if not, how long must police wait to question again before they must Mirandize without counsel present?

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'?

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