UnMirandized questioning about defendant\u2019s control of a bedroom was a close call, but not found not custodial. \u201cThis 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.\u201d United States v. Tapia-Rodriguez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61381 (D. Neb. Apr. 11, 2018)<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s 2255 is denied. As to the search: \u201cMcGinley 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.\u201d He also claimed it was a Playpen warrant [but how will that help, since nobody\u2019s won on that?]. United States v. McGinley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61418 (D. Minn. Apr. 11, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
UnMirandized questioning about defendant\u2019s control of a bedroom was a close call, but not found not custodial. \u201cThis case presents a close call. On balance, the Court concludes that under Muniz and Fleck and the circumstances of this case, Sergeant … Continue reading