Opinion ID: 2444929
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Scott's Third Claim

Text: Scott next claims that his counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress his statements to the police when they handcuffed him. He urges that the statements would have been suppressed because he was neither told that he was under arrest nor advised of his Miranda rights. This claim also lacks merit. Miranda warnings are required when a defendant is subject to custodial interrogation. [30] Scott, however, made his statements voluntarily and spontaneously as he was being taken into custody by the police. [31] Because there was no interrogation by the police, Miranda is inapplicable. Scott's counsel, therefore, did not perform deficiently by not moving to suppress Scott's spontaneous statements, and the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion by denying Scott's third claim.