we hold that defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation as of the time the interview started (or very shortly thereafter) and was, unless his occupation warrants a different result, therefore entitled to proper Miranda warnings. B. Status as a Police Officer The State contends that defendant’s occupation as a police officer excuses any noncompliance with the requirement of Miranda in this case. In Miranda, the United States Supreme Court noted that [t]he Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule ... we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given. Assessments of the knowledge the defendant possessed, based on information as to his age, education, th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Espinosa-Orlando, 704 F.2d
holding that defendants status as police officer did not obviate the requirement of miranda holding on collateral review that miranda rule did not apply to confession because petitioner was tried before miranda decision holding police officer is a public official holding that an employees status as a policymaker under the branti exception does not obviate the pickering analysis holding that defendants occupation as an attorney did not relieve police officers of giving him the requisite miranda warnings