Document: 481 U.S. 520 107 S.Ct. 1931 95 L.Ed.2d 458 ARIZONA, Petitionerv.William Carl MAURO. No. 85-2121. Argued March 31, 1987. Decided May 4, Rehearing Denied June 26, See 483 1034, 3278. Syllabus After being advised of his Miranda rights while in custody for killing son, respondent stated that he did not wish to answer any questions until a lawyer was present. All questioning then ceased and placed the police captain's office since there no secure detention area. Following her another room, respondent's wife insisted she be allowed speak with husband. Although reluctant at first, meeting on condition an officer Using recorder plain sight, taped brief conversation, during which expressed despair, told The prosecution used tape rebut insanity defense, trial court having refused suppress it upon finding police's actions were subterfuge avoid dictates Miranda. Respondent convicted sentenced death, but Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding had impermissibly interrogated within meaning Noting admissions they knew "possible" might make incriminating statements if saw wife, relied ruling Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 291, 100 1682, 64 297, "interrogation" includes practice—whether actual or "its functional equivalent" know is reasonably likely elicit response from suspect. According likelihood-of-response question focuses primarily perceptions suspect, rather than intent police. Held: following refusal questioned without constitute interrogation its equivalent. purpose Innis prevent government using coercive nature confinement extract confessions would given unrestrained environment. This implicated here, subjected compelling influences, psychological ploys, direct questioning. There evidence meet order obtain statements. Moreover, testimony, found credible, indicated number legitimate reasons officer's presence meeting, including wife's safety various security considerations. Furthermore, examination situation perspective demonstrates improbability have felt coerced incriminate himself simply because him. indeed aware talking do "interrogate" suspect by hoping will confess. Thus, voluntary, their use prohibited Fifth Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 525-530. 149 Ariz. 24, 716 P.2d 393 (1986), reversed remanded. POWELL, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, joined, post, p. 530. Jack Roberts, Phoenix, Ariz., petitioner. Kathleen Kelly Walsh, Flagstaff, respondent. Justice POWELL Court. 1 While this case custody, issue presented whether, circumstances case, officers violation Amendments when him officer. 2 * On November 23, 1982, Flagstaff Police Department received telephone call local K Mart store. caller man entered store claiming killed son. When reached store, Mauro freely admitted He directed child's body, arrested constitutional pursuant Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966). took station, where again. At point, more ceased. As area available, held captain. 3 same time, one officers, Detective Manson, Mauro's room. finished speaking Mrs. asked could Manson allow after insisted, discussed request supervisor, Sergeant Allen. Allen testified "saw harm suggested [Manson] really sincerely wanted talk go ahead it." App. 74. instructed leave Mr. alone tape-record conversation. 4 "told both together only present room observe hear what going on." Id., 218 (findings court). brought into seated desk, placing sight desk. recorded despair about situation. During present.1 5 defense been insane time crime. In rebuttal, played between arguing demonstrated sane day murder. sought suppression recording ground product rights. recording. First, explained basis officers' decision husband policeman: 6 "The counseled [Mrs. Mauro] [speak husband], adamant that. They finally yielded insistent demands. Station lacked interview justifiably appeared [sic ] . safety, also concerned security, terms whether cook up lie swap each other shouldn't allowed, some escape attempt made, smuggle weapon. idea expect along those lines." Ibid. 7 light these justifications, "that procedure ruse, nor create [i.e., allowing meeting] as indirect means avoiding Miranda." Accordingly, evidence. murder child abuse, death. 8 reversed. (1986). It officer, detectives impermissible, said, previously invoked right counsel before further. noted acknowledged pretrial hearings wife.2 our statement 297 (1980), "practice should evoke suspect," id., 301, S.Ct., 1689. concluded testimony interrogation, "[t]hey conversation place, made." P.2d, 400. Therefore, properly trial. 9 petition writ certiorari. Because below misconstrue supra, we granted petition, 479 811, 60, 93 19 We now reverse. II 10 begin summarizing relevant legal principles. Amendment provides "person shall compelled criminal witness against himself."3 (1966), "without proper safeguards process in-custody persons suspected accused crime contains inherently pressures work undermine individual's resist compel otherwise so freely." 467, 1624. "Accordingly, formulated now-familiar 'procedural effective privilege self-incrimination.' " Colorado Spring, 564, 572, 851, 856, 954 (1987) (quoting U.S., 444, 1612). Among rule has "expressed desire deal through counsel, [he] subject further authorities made available him, unless initiates communication, exchanges, conversations police." Edwards 451 477, 484-485, 101 1880, 1885, 68 378 (1981). 11 One frequently cases particular conduct constitutes "interrogation." Miranda, passage referred "questioning initiated law enforcement officers." 1612. But clarified supra. reviewed practices evoked Court's concern coerciveness 'interrogation environment.' 299, 1688 457, 1619). included "the lineups coached pick defendant perpetrator. .[,] so-called 'reverse line-up' identified witnesses perpetrator fictitious crime," variety "psychological such 'posi[t]' 'the guilt subject,' 'minimize moral seriousness offense,' 'to cast blame victim society.' 1689 450, 1615) (brackets Court). None techniques involves express questioning, yet them, coupled "interrogation environment," 'subjugate individual examiner' thereby compulsory self-incrimination." goals effectuated extended equivalent." phrase "functional "any words part (other normally attendant arrest custody) are suspect." (footnotes omitted). Finally, "[t]he latter portion definition III 12 turn us. gave warnings required never waived sole issue, then, subsequent rose level interrogation—that is, language interrogation. think clear under interrogated. shows conduct.4 Nor suggested—or supported evidence—that Allen's see kind ploy treated equivalent interrogation.5 13 sent eliciting found, tried discourage husband, "yielded demands," 218. Manson's improper. His reasons—not related securing statements—for 523—524 App.218). weakness claim underscored examining perspective. Cf. (suggesting suspect's may determining interrogation). doubt feel way. 14 correct note "possibility" wife. emphasized possibility agreed Mauros other.6 far less questionable "subtle compulsion" Innis. 303, 1690. Officers interrogate himself. again emphasized: 15 "Confessions remain element enforcement. Any voluntarily influences course, admissible fundamental import benefit can Volunteered barred admissibility affected today." 478, 1630, quoted 299-300, Oregon Elstad, 470 298, 305, 105 1285, 1291, 84 222 (1985). (" '[F]ar Constitution, wrongdoers, coerced, desirable' United States Washington, 431 181, 187, 97 1814, 1818, 52 238 (1977))). volunteered cannot considered result 17 deciding must remember behind decisions Edwards: preventing officials implicate departments need adopt inflexible rules barring suspects spouses, ignore concerns spouses private. short, acted lawfully situation, Federal Constitution does forbid IV 18 judgment remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. 20 whom BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 21 unanimously unequivocally intended respondent.1 reverses, occurred "was questioning." Ante, 529. record indicates, however, employed powerful ploy; failed give advance warning coming accompany her, recorded.2 transcript reveals, chosen her. ante, 522—523, n. 1. These facts conclusion advantage visit setting confrontation them manifestly desired silent. commence produce statement, opposite removes important brick wall protection overreaching surrounds custody. 22 William requested attorney. therefore undisputed either assistance 525—526; 1884-1885, Since neither event occurred, tape-recorded excluded (1980). 23 even pose term Innis: 24 "[T]he 'interrogation' refers A practice thus amounts interrogation." footnote, added: 25 "By 'incriminating response' refer inculpatory exculpatory—that seek introduce trial." 5, 1690, (emphasis original). 26 correctly applied standard admission [Mauro] violated state federal Const. amend. V, XIV; art. 2, § 10." 29, 393, 398 (1986).3 distinguishing Attorney General relied,4 State explained: 27 "Unlike Narten Summerlin, accidentally overhears Rather, here illicit custodial appellant detained station. constituted setting. However, besides setting, 'interrogation.' 28 "Interrogation 'practice suspect.' 1690 [64 297] 'The focus ascertaining form used, Finehout, 136 [226] 230, 665 [570] 574 [1983]. An response—whether 301 5. 29 own testimony. made. With mind, decided take recorder, sit near commence. 30 "Since clear, address appellant's perceptions. Whether unusually disoriented upset factor State's unambiguous. 302-03, (suspect's peculiar susceptibility appeal factors examined suspect). find, therefore, commence, indirectly directly appellant." 31-32, 400-401. 31 proffered disturbing cogent findings unpersuasive. "cannot accountable unforeseeable results actions." 301-302, grand canyon innocent unforeseeability mere lack explicit finds adequate preclude taken place. true spousal witnessed recorded, observation, recognized, sufficient satisfy Amendment. 32 place two listen officers. That exactly happened here.5 who small Each separately converse, act surely require hearing range. Under circumstances, known encounter response. Indeed, Officer supervisor reasonable expectation provide information investigation. asked, "what defendant, Mauro, .?" Captain Latham replied: 33 "Well, to, protection, attacked violence occurred. reason about. She investigation shed case." added). 34 my likely, highly probable, prosecutor follows deliberate, 35 permitted set aside merely indicates evidence-gathering mixed motives. For example, irrelevant inquiry "not statements." 528. matter precise how incriminating; much exploratory fact whose incriminatory already 36 final disregarding encourage advance, expected resulting "could 101. initial leading alter correctness Arizona's analysis. exercised exclusive control over spoke other; whatever convey moment, say conditions unilaterally imposed brief, exploited understandable 37 I respectfully dissent. entire proceeded follows: "MRS. MAURO: Please—please, don't do. put David [the victim] hospital. Please—I we're went help help. "[MR. MAURO]: You best you stop it. I— Shut up. MAURO:—taken mental hospital something. What'll do? "DET. MANSON: Do reverend priest someone to—take care David? Don't get attorney find out whats on. me can. What do, kill me? me. don't—we don't—I money. There's public know. Why just quiet. money bury got enough rent children that's Did want your more? No, can't Then me—get out. O.K." 30-31, 399-400 motion. "Q. [C]ertainly possible statements? "A. That's correct. And obviously, correct." 30, 399. [Detective Manson], certainly client statement? Yes. obviously purposes down Yes, sir." Malloy Hogan, 1, 1489, 653 (1964), requires observance state-court proceedings. course apparently lasted few minutes, statements, STEVENS suggests "employed ploy." Post, 531. bases reading "failed recorded." difficult reconcile court's sentence seems indicate warning. accepting states still makes fully informed began. Similarly, produced couple desk knowledge implies forced But, observed, listening, Instead, chose speak." 219. completely atmosphere oppressive portrayed dissent faults us reversing allegedly factual finding. due respect, disagree record. conclude Mauro. Rather Taken context, determination satisfied established Our today overturn rests likelihood incrimination articulated credited part, all, Manson: I'd like ask concerning techniques, might. "Do experience techniques? sir. Another technique, Byron, investigating juvenile matter, parents come presence? Along lines, it's uncommon family member And, fact, technique utilized isn't true? believe so, no, purpose. method." 79, 81. advice held. dispute establishes moment running, every effort keep knowing station: become Station? I'm sure. probably interview. closed door back door. didn't other." 111-112. nothing elsewhere support apparent assumption, 527—528, beforehand monitor studying precedents, violated. Its careful evaluation behavior Justices regularly review testified. assessment good reliable Court's. whenever reviews appellate special risk error familiarity limited Members devote study instances, outweighed necessity granting decide "issue general recurring significance" resolve split authority. Connecticut Barrett, 523, 536, 828, 836, 920 (STEVENS, dissenting). trace case. vote four grant certiorari exercise indiscretion. Narten, 99 116, 407 81 (1965), cert. denied, 1008, 1985, 1021 (1966); Eyman, 460 F.2d 184 (CA9 1969); 138 426, 675 686 (1984). regrettable irony endured very advising

Category: 0