explaining that parolees, in contrast to probationers, “have been sentenced to prison for felonies and released before the end of their prison terms” and *166 are “deemed to have acted more harmfully than anyone except those felons not released on parole”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that parolees, in contrast to probationers, “have been sentenced to prison for felonies and released before the end of their prison terms” and *166 are “deemed to have acted more harmfully than anyone except those felons not released on parole”
- holding that the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule “applies to statements and evidence obtained as a product of illegal searches and seizures” whenever there is a “causal connection between the-illegal conduct and the evidence sought to be suppressed”
- holding that an interrogation at an FBI office was not custodial because, inter alia, the defendant was told he was free to leave and “was, in fact, returned home at the end of the interview”
- noting that “courts have generally been much less likely to find that an interrogation in the suspect’s home [is] custodial in nature.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I join Judge Trott’s concurrence in its entirety, and because I believe there was no Fourth Amendment violation in this case, I join Judge Graber’s majority opinion except as to Part A.1, which assumes the contrary.