Rhode Island v. Innis
United States Supreme Court
446 U.S. 291 (1980)
Facts
Innis (defendant) was arrested and convicted of kidnapping, robbery and murder. At the time of his arrest, Innis was unarmed, but the police suspected that he had hidden a gun somewhere nearby. When he was arrested, Innis was read his Miranda warnings. He said that he understood his rights and he wanted a lawyer. Innis was placed in a police car with three officers for the ride to the police station. Along the way, two of the officers began speaking to each other, expressing their concern that a student from the nearby school for handicapped children would find the weapon and hurt himself. At this point, Innis told the police to turn around and he would show them where the gun was. Before pointing out the gun’s location, Innis was again read his Miranda rights. Innis responded that he understood but he did not want any children to come across the gun and get hurt. Innis then pointed out where the gun was. The trial judge ruled that Innis had been properly Mirandized and that it was understandable that the officers in the car would have addressed their concern to each other. The trial judge permitted the gun and Innis’ statements to be introduced at trial. The state supreme court disagreed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
Concurrence (Burger, C.J.)
Dissent (Marshall, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
