State v. Tyrone Wash.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Tyrone Wash.

240 So. 3d 908

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 20, 2018

DocketNo. 2018–KK–0206

StatusPublished

This text of 240 So. 3d 908 (State v. Tyrone Wash.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Tyrone Wash., 240 So. 3d 908 (La. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The district court's ruling that granted defendant's motion to suppress her statement is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. The officer's decision to forego the prophylactic protections of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), to quickly ascertain the degree of immediate risk of a potential accelerant-fueled house fire was objectively reasonable. Therefore, the district court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress. See New York v. Quarles , 467 U.S. 649, 657, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 2632, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984) ("We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.").

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The district court's ruling that granted defendant's motion to suppress her statement is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. The officer's decision to forego the prophylactic protections of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), to quickly ascertain the degree of immediate risk of a potential accelerant-fueled house fire was objectively reasonable. Therefore, the district court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress. See New York v. Quarles , 467 U.S. 649, 657, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 2632, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984) ("We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.").

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 So. 3d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tyrone-wash-la-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack