United States v. Anderson
This text of 23 F. App'x 851 (United States v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 F. App'x 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-anderson-ca9-2002.