be preceded by Miranda warnings. Id. at 1278-80. In that case, “the questioning from Investigator DeWitt was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from [the defendant],” because “the ‘background questions’ asked related directly to an element of a crime that DeWitt had reason to suspect.” Id. at 1280. Hence, Miranda warnings were required. Id. In United States v. Parra, 2 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 1993), the Tenth Circuit held that Miranda warnings were required pri- or to questioning by an INS agent where the suspect was in custody, the questioning went to the suspect’s true identity, and the questioning was “reasonably likely to elicit incriminating information relevant to establishing an essential element necessary for , 2009 WL 2426015, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2009) (<HOLDING>); Bonilla-Siciliano, 2008 WL 1820828, at *5-6
holding that the initial questioning was merely investigatory and miranda warnings were not necessary until after police found incriminating evidence holding that because miranda warnings make defendant aware of right to counsel and of consequences of waiving sixth amendment rights defendants waiver of right to counsel after receiving such warnings is valid holding that the warnings in their totality satisfied miranda holding that background and pedigree questioning of suspected alien was unconstitutional in the absence of miranda warnings holding that miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form stated in the miranda opinion as long as an effective equivalent is given