context: Similarly, several courts have upheld the admissibility of responses to routine questions asked during the booking and processing of arrestees and their belongings either before Miranda warnings had been given or after the suspect had requested a lawyer or indicated an intent to remain silent. The Second Circuit, nonetheless, ruled the response admissible, citing a draft of the ALI Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure SS 140.8(5), supra note 2, and stating that in Miranda, "the Supreme Court was concerned with protecting the suspect against interrogation of an investigative nature rather than the obtaining of basic identifying data required for booking and arraignment [such as marital status]."
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 470 F.Supp. 586, 589-91
citation_a.parenthetical: similar dialogue in squad car held not to be proscribed interrogation
citation_a.sentence: Cf. Cannistraci v. Smith, 470 F.Supp. 586, 589-91 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (similar dialogue in squad car held not to be proscribed interrogation).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.parenthetical: admission of an alias during booking is not within Miranda rule
citation_b.sentence: Id. at 1112-13. Accord, United States v. Prewitt, 553 F.2d 1082, 1085-86 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 840, 98 S.Ct. 135, 54 L.Ed.2d 104 (1977) (admission of an alias during booking is not within Miranda rule).