Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Miranda 'interrogation' — the reasonably-likely-to-elicit standard
Leading case
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)
How courts have described it
holding that an interrogation occurs when there is “express questioning” or “any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody
Eidson v. Owens, 515 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2008)
holding that interrogation under Miranda refers to words or actions by the police that they "should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response"
Mitchell Carlton Sims v. Jill Brown, Warden, 425 F.3d 560 (9th Cir. 2005)
holding that an interview comes under the term "interrogation" as used in Miranda even when the police do not use express questioning
holding that an interview comeá under the term “interrogation” as used in Miranda even when the police do not use express questioning
holding that "interrogation" under Miranda includes any statements that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
Kessler v. State, 991 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)
Related doctrines
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.