PER CURIAM.
The people appeal by leave granted from an order suppressing the use of certain statements which had been made by defendant without the benefit of Miranda warnings. The parties agree that, when he made the statements, defendant was not in custody but was the focus of a gas fraud investigation. The people contend on appeal that it is custody, and not "focus," that triggers the duty to give Miranda warnings.
Miranda v Arizona,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.