| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | A taxi driver is shot, Innis is arrested, and asks for a lawyer, but on the way to the station, officers strike up a conversation about what a hazard the missing gun is, and how it's near a school, and it would be a shame if any kids found it and had an accident. Innis leads them to the gun. |
| Posture: | Motion to suppress the shotgun is denied. Guilty at trial. RI SC sets the conviction aside. |
| Issue: | Was this interrogation, under Miranda? |
| Holding: | No. Reversed and remanded. |
| Rule: | Interrogation is either express questioning or its functional equivalent; subtle compulsion is not enough. |
| Reasoning: | There was nothing here that indicated this guy was confession-prone, and there was no actual quesitoning. |
| Dicta: | Marshall, dissenting: appealing to a suspect's conscience is a classic
interrogation technique.
Stevens, dissenting: attempting to elicit information from a suspect who has invoked his rights demeans and erodes the rights! This creates an incentive for police to ignore suspects' rights. |