United States v. William Darrell Halbert, (Two Cases)

The district court granted Halbert’s motion to suppress a confession to an FBI agent, relying on 18 U.S.C. § 3501 (c). The government took an interlocutory appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 . The major question presented is the proper construction of 18 U.S.C. § 3501 , from Title II of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, P.L. 90-351, 90th Congress, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 197 , on which, as yet, there is little case law. We reverse.

After the United States filed its appeal, Halbert filed a notice of appeal, purporting to be a cross appeal, ’■# 25,761. There is no statutory or case authority for such appeal. Halbert’s appeal is dismissed as improperly taken. However, we may properly consider, under the appeal by the United States, Halbert’s contention on his purported appeal, viz., whether there was given a proper warning under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 .

THE FACTS

Halbert was indicted under the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312 , for transporting a stolen car from Los Angeles, California to San Simon, Arizona. In the afternoon of Tuesday, November 11, 1969, Halbert was arrested by state officers with three other persons…