________ applies when a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
DAN AARON POLSTER, District Judge. Appe llant appeals the district court’s. conditional grant of the petiti on of writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. The district court found that the Michigan Court of Appeals unreasonably applied. Custodial Interrogation Miranda applies during “custodial interrogation,” as defined by the Supreme Court as: “Questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. In each of these cases, the defendant, while in police custody, was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. U.S. Supreme Court. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) After observing respondent's car weaving in and out of a highway lane, an officer of the Ohio State Highway Patrol forced respondent to stop and asked him to get out of the car. When the person who has been warned of his right to counsel decides that he wishes to consult with counsel before making a statement, the interview is terminated at that point, Shultz v. U.S., 351 F.2d 287 (1965). It may be continued, however, as to all matters other than the person's own guilt or innocence. McCarty v. Herdman, 716 F.2d 361, 363 (1983) (emphasis in original). In applying this principle to the facts of the case, the Court of Appeals distinguished between the statements made by respondent before and after his formal arrest. [Footnote 4] The postarrest statements, the court ruled, were. Page 468 U. S. 426. Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. unless the district court’s decision is based on the transcripts from the petitioner’s state. court trial, in which case the findings of fact are reviewed de novo. Wolfe v. Brigano, 232 F.3d 499, 501 (6th Cir. 2000). Questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact. A state court unreasonably applies cl early established federal law if the state. court identifies the correct governing legal rule from the Supreme Court’s cases but. unreasonably applies it to the facts of the state prisoner’s case. Thaler, 130 S.Ct. at. The FBI warning is given to a suspect at the very outset of the interview, as shown in the Westover case, cited above. The warning may be given to a person arrested as soon as practicable after the arrest, as shown in the Jackson case, also cited above, and in U.S. v. Konigsberg, 336 F.2d 844 (1964), cert. Fifth Amendment Interrogation vs. Sixth Amendment Deliberate Elicitation. The Fifth Amendment is concerned with coercive police tactics and self-incrimination; the Sixth Amendment applies even when there is no interrogation.
Custodial Interrogation Miranda