U.S. v. Patterson

In prosecution on armed robbery charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress confession to said charge, even though defendant argued that at time he made said confession, he was in custody of police officials, and that said officials had failed to give him any Miranda warnings. Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant was not in custody at time of confession so as to require any Miranda warnings, where: (1) police officials encountered defendant, who was known suspect in said robbery, on street; (2) defendant agreed to voluntarily go with officials to FBI office to talk about said robbery; (3) interrogation of defendant took place in conference room under conditions in which defendant, who was not under any physical restraints, could leave at any time; (4) at end of two hour interrogation, defendant confessed to crime and inquired as to when arrest warrant would be issued; and (5) officials drove defendant back to location of his choice after interrogation.