State v. Maciel

CHIEF JUSTICE BALES,

opinion of the Court:

¶ 1 Statements a person makes in response to “in custody” interrogation cannot be used to establish the person’s guilt if they are not preceded by the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S, 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We here hold that Carlos Andres Maeiel’s statements are admissible because he was not in custody for Miranda purposes when police detained him outside a vacant building and questioned him about a suspected burglary.

I

¶ 2 A motorist saw Maciel seated on a curb outside a vacant building that had a broken window. The…