Opinion ID: 3038595
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Suppression Issues

Text: [6] Arrellano-Ochoa argues that his statements before he was given a Miranda warning should have been suppressed. But the only pre-Miranda information the police got and used was where Arellano-Ochoa’s identification was and where and when was he born. These are normal questions “attendant to arrest and custody,” so Miranda is not implicated.16 And “nothing in our case law prohibits officers from asking for, or even demanding, a suspect’s identification.”17 Arellano-Ochoa also argues that a protective sweep of the trailer after he was arrested and handcuffed was impermissible, and that any discoveries made during the sweep should have been suppressed. But the sweep was permissible under Maryland v. Buie18 and our decision in United States v. Alfonso.19 13 See id. 14 See id. 15 Id. at 679. 16 Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980) (excepting questions “normally attendant to arrest and custody”). 17 United States v. Christian, 356 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334 (1990). 19 United States v. Alfonso, 759 F.2d 728, 742-43 (9th Cir. 1985). UNITED STATES v. ARELLANO-OCHOA 10643