United States v. Liddell
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
LOKEN, Chief Judge.
Antonio Ray Liddell pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). As permitted by a condition in his plea agreement, Liddell now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress a post-arrest statement made without the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We agree with the district court1 that the arresting officers’ in-custody questioning fell within the public safety exception to Miranda established in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- New York v. QuarlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Orozco v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. Sewn NewtonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- Radil v. Sanborn Western Camps, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- United States v. WattersCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2009
- United States v. Arcadio HernandezCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2014
- United States v. Erik BecerraCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2020
- United States v. EvermanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
- United States v. FautzDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2011
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.