United States v. Billy Ray Tucker

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Billy Ray Tucker

409 F.2d 223, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12799

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1969

Docket13020

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 409 F.2d 223 (United States v. Billy Ray Tucker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Billy Ray Tucker, 409 F.2d 223, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12799 (4th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Billy Ray Tucker appeals his conviction of transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce, knowing it to have been stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the conviction. On September 11, 1967, the defendant was arrested in Norfolk, Virginia, and charged with the interstate transportation of a 1963 Ford Thunderbird. It is conceded that he was properly warned. In response to inquiry about the Thunderbird, the defendant volunteered the circumstances of the theft and transportation of a 1966 Ford Galaxie, the transportation of which forms the basis for the present indictment and conviction. Several months later the defendant was arrested and charged with the interstate transportation of the stolen 1966 Ford Galaxie. At the time of his subsequent arrest, he was not given the Miranda warnings, but neither did he make any statement, or, if he did, it was not used against him.

Nothing in Miranda or its progeny prevents investigating officers who have properly warned a defendant from listening to a voluntary narrative of another offense which is not even under investigation. As for the failure to again give the Miranda warning at the time of the second arrest, it is absurd to suggest that the warning must be given although no questions are asked and no statements are sought to be used against the defendant.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Billy Ray Tucker appeals his conviction of transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce, knowing it to have been stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the conviction. On September 11, 1967, the defendant was arrested in Norfolk, Virginia, and charged with the interstate transportation of a 1963 Ford Thunderbird. It is conceded that he was properly warned. In response to inquiry about the Thunderbird, the defendant volunteered the circumstances of the theft and transportation of a 1966 Ford Galaxie, the transportation of which forms the basis for the present indictment and conviction. Several months later the defendant was arrested and charged with the interstate transportation of the stolen 1966 Ford Galaxie. At the time of his subsequent arrest, he was not given the Miranda warnings, but neither did he make any statement, or, if he did, it was not used against him.

Nothing in Miranda or its progeny prevents investigating officers who have properly warned a defendant from listening to a voluntary narrative of another offense which is not even under investigation. As for the failure to again give the Miranda warning at the time of the second arrest, it is absurd to suggest that the warning must be given although no questions are asked and no statements are sought to be used against the defendant.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 F.2d 223, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-billy-ray-tucker-ca4-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack