Court Opinion

ID: 9454823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:00:19.691812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:19.794054
License: Public Domain

LEWIS, Circuit Judge,
with whom HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge, joins (concurring specially).
This judgment is properly affirmed for, as it appears from Chief Judge Murrah’s clear statement of the factual background, appellant’s rights have in no way been violated and the trial court committed no error. And, were it necessary as a legal premise for disposition of this case, I would have no hesitancy in concurring in many of the academic views expressed in the principal opinion as the proper correlation between the rule of Miranda- and the mandate of Rule 5(a). Certain it is that state custody cannot be used as a subterfuge to defeat federal rights. But to the extent that the principal opinion *174creates a presumption that Rule 5(a) is violated by continued or “persistent” interrogation of a person in state custody after probable cause exists for federal arrest, I must deny the existence of such a legal presumption and the concomitant legal fiction that state custody becomes federal custody.
Rule 5(a) by its very wording is triggered by the fact of arrest, not by the existence of probable cause to make an arrest. The “spirit” of the rule is contained within its language and does not warrant judicial extension to the legislative field unauthorized by the limited delegation of legislative rights to the Supreme Court through its statutory rule-making power.