| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | There are really 4 cases here, all having to do with custodial interrogation. |
| Posture: | Various. That's not the important thing. Some federal, some state. |
| Issue: | What procedures are necesary to protect the Fifth Amendment rights of individuals subjected to custodial police interrogation? (both federally and as applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment, by the way) |
| Holding: | Technically, there are 4 of them, either affirming or reversing on the basis of the rule. |
| Rule: | The prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial
interrogation unless they're informed:
|
| Reasoning: | The constitution is not just a form of words. We're really just
fleshing out what we meant in Escobedo. Modern
interrogation techniques can overwhelm people.
Review of Reid and Inbau techniques. The government must accord its citizens their dignity and integrity. |
| Dicta: | Clark, dissenting: brutality is the exception, not the norm, and
the techniques discussed here aren't the manuals for any of
the police departments involved in these cases. This doesn't
protect against a police department willing to lie about
waivers. Custodial interrogation is an important tool.
White, dissenting: We're throwing away 70 years of good precedent here. There's nothing wrong with just asking questions of suspects; society has an interest in solving crimes. |