United States v. Anderson

23 F. App'x 851
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Anderson. Read the opinion of the Court — 94 F. App'x 487
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 4, 2002·No. No. 01-10061; D.C. No. CR 99-00335 1 DAD·Published

Opinion

[852]*852MEMORANDUM2

Appellant Rudolph L. Anderson, a former postal worker, entered into conditional pleas of guilty, pursuant to Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in the Magistrate Court for obstructing the mail and delaying the mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1701 and 1703(b). Anderson appeals the District Court’s order denying his supplemental motion to suppress statements made to Anderson’s supervisor, Art Battle.

Anderson argues that because Battle is a government actor, a postal supervisor, he was required to give Miranda warnings prior to questioning Anderson. Anderson was not in custody when Battle questioned him, and, therefore, Miranda warnings were not required. See Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Anderson’s supplemental motion to suppress statements made to his supervisor is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Anderson, 23 F. App'x 851 (9th Cir. 2002).

23 F. App'x 851 (United States v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court, 1966)