01-1054-CR State v. Arnold

By: dmc-admin//September 17, 2001//

Listen to this article

The State appeals an order suppressing incriminating statements that David Arnold made to police. The State argues that (1) Arnold was not in custody when he made the statements, and (2) Arnold’s statements were voluntary because the police used no coercive or improper tactics to induce him to make the statements. We agree that Arnold was not in custody and that his statements to the police were voluntary.

We reverse the suppression order and remand to the trial court.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist III, Eau Claire County, Proctor, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Keri S. Behrend, Eau Claire; Susan M. Crawford, Madison

For Respondent: Carl T. Bahnson, Altoona

Legal News

See All Legal News

Case Digests

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event