Rankin v. State
Ex Parte Rickey Horace Rankin. (Re Rickey Horace Rankin v. State of Alabama).
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
In quashing the writ, we are not to be understood as agreeing with the rationale of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion, 541 So.2d 577 , (Part I), dealing with the issue whether the testimony of a police *583 dispatcher was inadmissible as violative of the “Miranda rule” (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)). Without deciding whether this witness was acting on behalf of law enforcement officers or as a private citizen in obtaining an inculpatory statement from the defendant, we hold that the trial court’s admission of the evidence is otherwise sustainable because of the noncustodial context in which the defendant’s statement was made. The safeguards provided by Miranda apply only when an individual is subjected to custodial interrogation. United States v. Phillips, 812 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir.1987); Pate v. State, 492 So.2d 1026 (Ala.Crim.App.1986).
WRIT QUASHED.
All the Justices concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.