*373 OPINION
By the Court,
This is an appeal from the conviction of defendants Donald Schaumberg and William Cox for thе crime of conspiracy to cheat and defraud Harrah’s Club at Lake Tahoe in the sum of $5,000 by placing a false jackpot on a slot machine, in violation of NRS 199.480. They were tried jointly.
Schaumberg was a slot machine repairman employed at Harrah’s. Cox, his brother-in-law, was visiting at Schaumberg’s home. Shortly after 6:00 a.m. on September 21, 1964, Schaumberg was observed working on a dollar slot machine by a pit boss of Harrah’s, Ovlan Fritz. After performing some mechanics within the machine, he adjusted it so that it was turned partially on the base plate and then left the area. Immediately thereafter, Cox went to the machine, moved it *374 squarely onto the base рlate, whereupon it registered a $5,000 jackpot. Fritz reported what he saw to two other supervisors. Together with a security guard employed by Harrah’s, they asked Cox to accompany them to the security office. Leaving him in the office, they proceeded to lоcate Schaumberg whom they found in a washroom. Schaumberg accompanied them to the manager’s office. The security guard remained outside the office while two of the supervisors, Howland and Curry, questioned Schaumberg. In all, four supervisors testified Schaumberg admitted that he had rigged the slot machine because Cox needed money.
Three assignments of error are propounded in this appeal, but our attention is focused on whether the substancе of Escobedo v. Illinois,
1. The purport оf Escobedo and Miranda is to prevent oppressive police tactics which viоlate individual rights and produce involuntary confessions. Though Miranda said there can be no dоubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available to protect persons from being compelled to incriminate themselves in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed, it is cleаr that the thrust of the decision was aimed against the “potentiality for compulsion” (Miranda v. Arizоna, supra, at 457) found in custodial interrogation initiated by police officers. People v. Frank,
2. Though the requirements of the Miranda admonitions and the substance of Escobedo arе obviated in the present setting, we must nevertheless be concerned that the statements mаde by the defendant were voluntary and not the product of coercion. To be admissible as evidence, a confession (or admission) must be made freely, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement, whether made to police officers or to private persоns. People v. Frank, supra; People v. Berve, 332 *375 P.2d 97 (Cal. 1958). NRS 199.460 affords this protection, but that statute is limitеd to persons whose confessions are forced while they are under arrest.
Howevеr, in our consideration of the record in this case, we find no evidence that the admissions mаde by the defendant Schaumberg were not voluntarily given. Under all of the tests as we know them, there was no cause for fear since the detention was not accomplished by threat, compulsion or force. Until the sheriff’s officers arrived, Schaumberg and Cox were not under arrest. They could have remained silent. The admissions made by Schaumberg were properly admittеd into evidence.
3. The appellants contend that the information filed was not proper and a conviction based thereon cannot stand. We note that the appеllants did not choose any of the procedures outlined in the statutes to raise the questiоn in the proceedings below and now present the issue for the first time.
1
Since it is apparent the defense was conducted with full understanding of the charge, without prejudice to any substantive rights of the defendants, we reject this assignment of error for failure to properly raise objection in the trial court. O’Briant v. State,
4. The appellants further contend the trial court committed error in failing to give a requested cautionary instruction relating to oral confessions. 2
After examining all of the instruction given by the trial court regarding oral confessions, it is our oрinion that the subject matter was properly and fully treated. Hence, the refusal was not еrror. Cranford v. State,
Affirmed.