United States v. Bolden, 71-1565.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1565.,71-1565. |
| Citation | 461 F.2d 998 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Eli BOLDEN, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Alfred I. Harris, and Morton L. Schwartz, St. Louis, Mo., on brief for appellant.
Daniel Bartlett, Jr., U. S. Atty., and David W. Harlan, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., on brief for appellee.
Before VOGEL, LAY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-appellant, Eli Bolden, was found guilty by a jury of having in his possession certain mail matter and an article contained therein (a Master Charge credit card) knowing the same to have been stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1708. He appeals from the judgment of conviction. We affirm.
On April 10, 1971, while at an E. J. Korvette Store located in Cool Valley, Missouri, Bolden presented a Master Charge credit card for payment of a suit which he wanted to purchase. The credit card in question had been issued and mailed to James Sayles of St. Louis, Missouri. Because of the amount of the purchase, the cashier called Master Charge for an authorization. As a result, Robert Earl Cope, who is a security detective at the E. J. Korvette Store in Cool Valley, received a call from Master Charge, stating that someone was attempting to use a stolen credit card in the store. Security Officer Cope then proceeded to the men's check-out, took the Master Charge plate from the cashier and inquired as to whose card it was. Bolden responded that it was his. Cope thereupon asked appellant to accompany him to the store office in order to "straighten out the problem".
When asked for personal identification, Bolden produced a card in his own name from the Missouri State Psychiatric Hospital. After seeing the card, Security Officer Cope immediately notified the Cool Valley Police, who then effected the arrest of appellant. Cope never placed appellant under arrest, nor did he restrain him in any way.
On appeal, appellant Bolden argues that he is entitled to a new trial because (1) he was not given the Miranda warnings by Security Officer Cope; (2) the United States Marshal's office was unable to locate one Tony Gaskin, a potential defense witness; and (3) the trial court erred in the giving of certain instructions.
While it is true that Security Officer Cope did not give appellant the warnings required by Miranda, it is also true that such warnings are only required when there is a "custodial interrogation", which is defined by the Supreme Court as "* * * questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Miranda v. Arizona, 1965, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.
In view of the facts before us, we feel that Bolden was not under "custodial interrogation" because (1) Cope did not restrain appellant's freedom in any significant way; (2) appellant voluntarily admitted that he had possessed the card in question; (3) appellant voluntarily gave evidence of his true identity; (4) appellant voluntarily accompanied Cope to the store office; and (5) Security Officer Cope was not a "law enforcement official" acting in a situation where the warnings would be necessary. Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; United States v. Birnstihl, 9 Cir., 1971, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Salzmann
...is entitled to demand that a state make a reasonable, good-faith effort not only to serve its subpoenas, see United States v. Bolden, 461 F.2d 998, 1000 (8th Cir. 1972); Maguire v. United States, 396 F.2d 327, 330 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1099, 89 S.Ct. 897, 21 L.Ed.2d 792 (1......
-
Com. v. Mahnke
...extend to their activities. See United States v. Antonelli, 434 F.2d 335, 337 (2d Cir. 1970), and authorities cited; United States v. Bolden, 461 F.2d 998 (8th Cir. 1972); United States v. Casteel, 476 F.2d 152 (10th Cir. 1973). Nevertheless, the defendant argues that the 'connection' among......
-
U.S. v. Solomon
...Cir. 1970). Accord United States v. Birnstihl, 441 F.2d 368 (9 Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (store security officer); United States v. Bolden, 461 F.2d 998 (8 Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (same); United States v. Casteel, 476 F.2d 152 (10 Cir. 1973) (employees of private security firm). Cf. United St......
-
City of Grand Rapids v. Impens
...to private individuals need not be preceded by Miranda warnings. United States v. Antonelli, 434 F.2d 335 (CA 2, 1970); United States v. Bolden, 461 F.2d 998 (CA 8, 1972); United States v. Casteel, 476 F.2d 152 (CA 10, 1973); Schaumberg v. State, 83 Nev. 372, 432 P.2d 500 (1967); Anno: Cust......
-
Crawford v. Washington and Davis v. Washington's Originalism: Historical Arguments Showing Child Abuse Victims' Statements to Physicians Are Nontestimonial and Admissible as an Exception to the Confrontation Clause - Tom Harbison
...some coercive law enforcement activity must exist. See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 (1986); see also United States v. Bolden, 461 F.2d 998, 999 (8th Cir. 1972) (holding that Miranda requirements do not apply to questioning by private persons); United States v. Wilkerson, 460 F.2d......