Connection lost
Server error
NEW YORK v. QUARLES Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Police arrested a suspect in a supermarket and, before giving Miranda warnings, asked where he had discarded his gun. The Supreme Court created a “public safety” exception to Miranda, allowing the suspect’s statement and the gun to be used as evidence.
Legal Significance: This case established the “public safety” exception to Miranda v. Arizona, allowing pre-warning custodial interrogation when reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety. It represents a significant limitation on Miranda’s prophylactic rule, balancing it against immediate public danger.
NEW YORK v. QUARLES Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
A woman informed police she had been raped by an armed man who then entered a nearby supermarket. Police located the suspect, Benjamin Quarles, inside. After a brief chase, an officer apprehended Quarles, frisked him, and discovered an empty shoulder holster. With Quarles handcuffed and surrounded by several officers, but before administering Miranda warnings, the officer asked, “Where is the gun?” Quarles gestured toward some cartons and stated, “the gun is over there.” The officer retrieved a loaded revolver from a carton. Only then did the officer formally arrest Quarles and read him his Miranda rights. Quarles then made additional incriminating statements. The New York courts suppressed both the initial statement and the gun, finding a clear Miranda violation, and also suppressed the subsequent statements as tainted fruit.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a public safety exception to the requirement of giving Miranda warnings exist when police officers, in the act of apprehending a suspect, ask questions reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for public safety?
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s suppression order. The need Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labor
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a public safety exception to the requirement of giving Miranda warnings exist when police officers, in the act of apprehending a suspect, ask questions reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for public safety?
Conclusion
New York v. Quarles established a significant, albeit narrow, exception to Miranda, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupt
Legal Rule
Under the public safety exception, police may ask a suspect in custody Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupt
Legal Analysis
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Rehnquist, reasoned that Miranda warnings Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Establishes the “public safety” exception to Miranda. - Pre-Miranda custodial statements