No. 21-7090
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: child-pornography constitutional-rights custodial-interrogation customs-and-border-patrol federal-agents in-custody-interrogation law-enforcement-procedure miranda-rights miranda-warning ruse
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy
FifthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy
Latest Conference:
2022-03-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Appellate Court err in finding Larry O'Neal was not in custody for Miranda purposes?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Did the Appellate Court err in finding Larry O'Neal, an officer with Custom and Boarder Patrol, was not in incustody, for Miranda purposes, he was directed by the Assistant Port Director to help move a printer as a ruse to lead Mr. O'Neal to three federal agents waiting to interrogate him about a child pornography investigation and subsequently questioned him for over two hours in a closed office space ultimately leading to Mr. O'Neal's arrest in the end? Page 2 of 22
Docket Entries
2022-03-07
Petition DENIED.
2022-02-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/4/2022.
2022-02-15
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-02-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 11, 2022)
Attorneys
Larry O'Neal
Hunter J. Tzovarras — Law Office of Hunter J Tzovarras LLC, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent