The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286 (9th Cir. 1982):
4 The continued relevance of this factor is at least open to question. See Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 495-96, 97 S.Ct. at 714 (officer's false statement during police station interview to the effect that suspect's fingerprints had been found at the scene of the burglary "has nothing to do with whether respondent was in custody for the purpose of the Miranda rule").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.