Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Ross, D. L., & Myers, J. J. (2010). Recent legal developments: Maryland v. Shatzer: Revisiting reinterviewing after invoking Miranda’s right to counsel. Criminal Justice Review, 35, 371–385.

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/ircUzm9pKyDkpWDrE52w/full

Abstract: A unanimous Supreme Court modified its previously strict holding forbidding reinterviewing a suspect after he invoked his right to counsel under Miranda. An initial request for an attorney no longer means that police can never reinitiate questioning. Questioning may be resumed when a suspect has returned to his normal life for some time before the later attempted interrogation. Once a break in custody occurs that is of sufficient duration to dissipate its coercive effects, it is permissible for detectives to reapproach suspects to inquire whether there is a change of heart regarding interrogation without counsel. Adequate breaks in custody suitably attenuate the inherently compelling and coercive pressures that existed during the original custodial interrogation. This decision militates against the finite Edwards presumption of an involuntary waiver of rights.

Journal Article 2: Johnson, B. R., & Stevens, R. S. (2013). The regulation and control of bail recovery agents: An exploratory study. Criminal Justice Review, 38, 190–206.

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/JGePbjiIaTw6WRPA8kJ4/full

Abstract: This article explores the current status of the licensing and regulation of bail recovery agents in the United States. By reviewing state legislative and administrative codes in all the 50 states, this study found that 24 states control bail recovery agents through licensure or the imposition of other occupational regulations. These state controls include age, criminal history, and pretraining and educational requirements; some states also require continuing education and training for licensure and/or regulation. In contrast, 18 states have no licensing or other occupational requirements for bail recovery agents. These findings raise questions about the actual utility and function of these laws, suggesting that states place minimal controls on this sector of the bail industry, oftentimes, relying upon voluntary self-regulation and governance of recovery agents. As such, the civil liberties of the public and criminal defendants may be at risk from this underregulated profession.