D.Neb.: Unwarned questioning about control of a bedroom wasn’t custodial

UnMirandized questioning about defendant’s control of a bedroom was a close call, but not found not custodial. “This case presents a close call. On balance, the Court concludes that under Muniz and Fleck and the circumstances of this case, Sergeant Heath’s routine questions about Tapia-Rodriguez’s residency and which bedroom was his do not constitute interrogation. As such, Sergeant Heath could ask those questions without first giving Miranda warnings. Tapia-Rodriguez’s Motion to Suppress Evidence is denied.” United States v. Tapia-Rodriguez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61381 (D. Neb. Apr. 11, 2018)

Defendant’s 2255 is denied. As to the search: “McGinley claims that the warrant was invalid and his counsel should have moved to suppress evidence derived from it. Yet he offers no reason that the warrant was invalid, nor is the Court aware of any.” He also claimed it was a Playpen warrant [but how will that help, since nobody’s won on that?]. United States v. McGinley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61418 (D. Minn. Apr. 11, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Custody, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.