Opinion ID: 195768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The un-Mirandized Statement

Text: 25 Rogers argues that the district court committed plain error in admitting evidence of his statement, made in the bedroom of the apartment, that he would have blown his brains out had he been able to reach his gun. 26 After taking Rogers into custody, the officers waited approximately ten minutes for the arrival of another officer who could positively identify the defendant. In the meantime, they asked Rogers who he was. There is no evidence that the officers asked Rogers for more than his name, cf. United States v. Doe, 878 F.2d 1546, 1551 (1st Cir.1989) ([a]ssuming the existence of a Miranda exception for routine booking interrogation), or that his statement was anything but voluntary and spontaneous. Accordingly, we cannot find plain error.