Legal Opinion

United States v. Horst

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided December 8, 1983No. ACM S26092PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION

HODGSON, Chief Judge:

The admissibility of the accused’s pretrial statement is the sole issue before us. Citing Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979), appellate defense counsel argue that the trial judge erred in not suppressing a statement the accused gave to the Office of Special Investigations (OSI). Specifically, they contend that the accused’s confession was the result of a custodial interrogation based upon an insufficient showing of probable cause to “seize” the accused for questioning.

I

We must first consider the applicability of the Dunaway…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dunaway v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. United States v. TempiaUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1967
  3. United States v. SchneiderUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
  4. United States v. PriceU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1982
  5. United States v. GarciaU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1983

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. TorresU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1989
  2. United States v. ReppU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API