United States v. Julio Meraz-Madero, Jr.

We hold a Miranda warning (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.E.2d 694 (1966)) is not required in a routine border-crossing case, such as this, when the only question asked defendant at the border was “ [I] f it was his vehicle, and he said ‘yes’.” [R.T. 12]

We affirm the judgment of conviction.