# United States of America, State of California, Intervenor v. Raphyal Crawford, AKA Aarmyl Crawford

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 21, 2004 · 372 F.3d 1048

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9497104

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, State of California, Intervenor, v. Raphyal CRAWFORD, AKA Aarmyl Crawford, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 21, 2004
- **Citations:** 372 F.3d 1048; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 12116; 2004 WL 1375521
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by O'Scannlain
- **Judges:** Schroeder, Pregerson, Kozinski, O'Scannlain, Trott, Kleinfeld, Tashima, Graber, Fletcher, Tallman, Clifton
- **Cited by:** 206 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9497104

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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.”
- holding that the “necessary connection” between the illegal search at issue and the defendant’s later confession was missing in part because the search “produced no evidence whatsoever”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9497104. Public record. Not legal advice.