 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Smith12/17/2002
without a valid search warrant is nevertheless admissible if it is in plain view, there was a prior justification for an intrusion, the discovery was inadvertent, and there was probable cause to believe that the items seized were immediately apparent evidence of crime. State v. Bradford, 618 N.W.2d 782, 795 (Minn. 2000).
Before the district court, Smith argued that his statement about E.H. giving "good head" should have been suppressed because he had not been given a Miranda warning. But the district court found that there had been no interrogation, that the only questions asked by police had been routine, preliminary booking questions, and that Smith's statement was spontaneous and volunteered. The evidence supports those findings.
A Miranda warning need not be given before asking routine booking questions. State v. Widell, 258 N.W.2d 795, 797 (Minn. 1977). A volunteered statement made by a suspect, not in response to interrogation, is admissible without the giving of a Miranda warning. State v. Williams, 535 N.W.2d 277, 289 (Minn. 1995).
On appeal, Smith argues that his statement should have been suppressed because it was the fruit of an illegal arrest. But because Smith did not make this argument before the district court, we will not address it on appeal. See Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) ("This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.")
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|