| Litigants: | Robert Edward Stansbury v. California |
| Arguedate: | March 30 |
| Argueyear: | 1994 |
| Decidedate: | April 26 |
| Decideyear: | 1994 |
| Fullname: | Robert Edward Stansbury v. California |
| Prior: | Defendant convicted; Calif. Sup. Ct. affirms |
| Subsequent: | Case remanded to trial court. |
| Oralargument: | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_5770 |
| Usvol: | 511 |
| Uspage: | 318 |
| Parallelcitations: | 114 S. Ct. 1526; 128 L. Ed. 2d 293 |
| Holding: | The test for custody under Miranda v. Arizona is whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. The subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned are irrelevant. The key inquiry should be whether the individual had been placed under formal arrest, or whether the restraint placed on the individual's freedom of movement rose to the level of a formal arrest. |
| Percuriam: | yes |
| Concurrence: | Blackmun |
| Lawsapplied: | U.S. Const. amend. V |
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a police officer's subjective and undisclosed opinion whether a person who had been questioned was a suspect was relevant in determining whether that person had been in custody and thus entitled to the Miranda warnings.[1] In a 9–0 ruling, the Court reversed and remanded the case. In a per curiam decision, the Court held that "an officer's subjective and undisclosed view concerning whether the person being interrogated is a suspect is irrelevant to the assessment [of] whether the person is in custody."[1]