United States v. Julio Meraz-Madero, Jr.
435 F.2d 167
Opinion
We hold a Miranda warning (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602,16 L.E.2d 694 (1966)) is not required in a routine border-crossing case, such as this, when the only question asked defendant at the border was “ [I] f it was his vehicle, and he said ‘yes’.” [R.T. 12]
We affirm the judgment of conviction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Julio Meraz-Madero, Jr., 435 F.2d 167 (9th Cir. 1970).
435 F.2d 167 (United States v. Julio Meraz-Madero, Jr.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court, 1966)