Legal Opinion

Metigoruk v. Municipality of Anchorage

Court of Appeals of Alaska

Decided December 17, 1982No. 186PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SINGLETON, Judge.

Louis Metigoruk was convicted of shoplifting. AMC 8.05.550(A). He appeals arguing that a statement he made to a private security guard, employed by the store whose property he allegedly stole, should not have been admitted in evidence against him because the security guard did not give him Miranda warnings before questioning him. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The municipality concedes that no Miranda warnings were given. The trial court held Miranda to be inapplicable to private security guards. Under the circumstances…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Estelle v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Silks v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1976
  4. In Re Deborah C.California Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Tarnef v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1973

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. QuillenUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1988
  2. Bowman v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. Owen v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. Cullom v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1983
  5. United States v. QuillenUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API