Please reply to the inquiry by the reference with an understanding

*Please reply to the inquiry with an interpretation of the reference

Issue: What overarching issue was the court addressing or resolving (one questions not a paragraph just one sentence encapsulating)

Facts: What are the facts that the court described and cared about?

facts section should only include the actual facts of the case.

Rule of Law:What rule please mention the statue, case, legal principle mention did the court apply

*rule of law segment should only include the actual statutes, constitutional amendments or cases the Court applies the facts USE PRECEDENT FROM THE OTHER ITALIZES CASES

Application- how did the court apply the rule to the facts?

*application section should be how the Court applied the facts to the law

Conclusion: what result did the court reach and WHY?

Rhode Island v. Innis

that he understood his rights, but that he Wanted to get the gun out of the way because ofthe kids in the area in the school.\" He then led the pol ice to the shotgun. The shotgun was used as evidence at his trial which resulted in a conviction] MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court. We do not, however, construe the Miranda opinion so narrowly. The concern of the Court in Miranda was that the "interroga tion environment" created by the interplay of interrogation and custody would "subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner" and thereby undermine the privilege against compulsory self-incriminatingolice practices that evoked this concern includedation of the facts of this case. The starting point for defining "interroga tion" in this context is, of course, the Court's Miranda opinion. There the Court observed that "[bly custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his free- dom of action in any significant way." This passage and other references throughout the opinion to "questioning" might suggest that the Miranda rules were to apply only to those police interrogation practices that involve express questioning of a defendant while in custody.In Miranda v. Arizona, the Court held that, once a defendant in custody asks to speak with a lawyer, all interrogation must cease until a lawyer is present. . . . In the present case, the parties are in agreement that Innis was fully informed of his Miranda rights and that he invoked his Miranda right to counsel when he told Captain Leyden that he wished to consult with a lawyer. It is also uncontested that Innis was "in custody" while being transported to the police station. The issue, therefore, is whether the respons dent was "interrogated" by the police officers in violation of the respondent's undisputed right under Miranda to remain silent until he had consulted with a lawyer. In resolving this issue, we first define the term "interrogation" under Miranda before turning to a consider-[A taxicab driver who was robbed by a man with a sawed-off shotgun identied Innis from a picture shown him by police. Shortly thereaer, a patrolman spotted Innis on the street, arrested him, and advised him of his Miranda rights. Innis stated that he under- stood his rights and wanted to speak with a lawyer. He was then placed in a squad car to be driven to the police station, accompanied by three ofcers who were instructed not to question him. While en route to the station, two of the ofcers engaged in a conversation between themselves concerning the missing shotgun. One of the ofcers stated that there were \"a lot of handicapped children running around in this area\" because a school for such children was located nearby, and \"God forbid one of them might nd a weapon with shells and they might hurt themselves.\" Innis inter- rupted the conversation, stating that the of- cers should turn the car around so he could show them where the gun was located. Upon returning to the scene of the arrest, Innis was again advised of his Miranda rights, replied