State v. John Powers

¶ 1. In this interlocutory appeal, the State challenges the trial court’s suppression of two sets of statements that defendant made to his probation officer. The trial court determined that suppression was warranted because the probation officer did not provide defendant with the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The State argues that Miranda, warnings were not required because defendant was not in custody at the time he made his incriminatory statements. We agree with the State with respect to the first set of statements and reverse the decision to suppress those…