United States v. Anderson

23 F. App'x 851
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 4, 2002
DocketNo. 01-10061; D.C. No. CR 99-00335 1 DAD
StatusPublished

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.

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

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 F. App'x 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-anderson-ca9-2002.