Document: 48 L.Ed.2d 1 96 S.Ct. 1612 425 U.S. 341 Alvin A. BECKWITH, Jr., Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 74-1243. Argued Dec. 1, 1975. Decided April 21, 1976. Syllabus Statements made by petitioner taxpayer to Internal Revenue agents during the course of a noncustodial interview in criminal tax investigation Held admissible against him ensuing fraud prosecution even though he was not given warnings required Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694. Although "focus" may have been on when interviewed, sense that his liability under scrutiny, is equivalent for purposes, which involves "questioning initiated law enforcement officers After person has taken into custody or otherwise deprived freedom action any significant way." Id., at 444, 1612, 706 (emphasis supplied). Pp. 344-348. 166 U.S.App.D.C. 361, 510 F.2d 741, affirmed. John G. Gill, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Scott P. Crampton, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. The important issue presented this case whether special agent Service, investigating potential income violations, must, an with taxpayer, custody, give called Court's decision 694 (1966). We granted certiorari resolve conflict between holding Court Appeals case, consistent weight authority issue,1 and position adopted United States Seventh Circuit.2 2 District conducted thorough inquiry facts surrounding before ruling motion suppress statements issue. considerable amount investigation, two Intelligence Division Service met private home where occasionally stayed. senior testified they went see residence 8 a. m. order spare possible embarrassment being interviewed place employment opened 10 Upon their arrival, identified themselves answering door asked speak were invited house and, entered room waiting, introduced according testimony agent, Beckwith then excused himself period excess five minutes, finish dressing.3 Petitioner sat down dining table agents; credentials stated attached one functions investigate possibility fraud. They informed assigned federal years 1966 through 1971. read from printed card following: 3 "As my violations laws, related offenses. 4 "Under Fifth Amendment Constitution States, I cannot compel you answer questions submit information if such answers might tend incriminate way. also advise anything say be used proceeding undertaken. further may, wish, seek assistance attorney responding." App. 65-66. 5 acknowledged understood rights. until about 11 o'clock. described conversation as "friendly" "relaxed." noted did "press" question could chose answer. 6 Prior conclusion interview, requested permit inspect certain records. indicated employment. meet there later. Having traveled separately petitioner, approximately 45 minutes later advised furnish books records; however, supplied agents. 7 trial, moved all evidence derived those ground had mandated Miranda. ruled entitled "when court finds fact custodial circumstances." Judge find "on record . no whatsoever situation." affirmed judgment conviction. 741 (1975). It reasoning based "in crucial part" suspect "has way," 362, F.2d, 742, citing Miranda, supra, 477, 1629, 725; agreed "Beckwith neither arrested nor detained will." U.S.App.D.C., 742. agree analysis Appeals4 therefore, affirm its judgment. contends "entire starting point" brought secured own disclosures Division. He correctly points out cases are only some indication that, especially since offenses rarely result pretrial clearly matter Given complexity structure confusion part taxpayers civil function confrontation, argues places "psychological restraints" functional, legal, custody. In short we Bazelon, speaking unanimous Appeals, 9 "(t)he major thrust Beckwith's argument principle Mathis5 should extended cover interrogation non-custodial circumstances after police focused suspect." Ibid. With "are impressed abstract applied particular interrogation." goes far beyond reasons extension requirements would cut completely loose explicitly rationale. narrow very precisely opening paragraph "the admissibility obtained individual who subjected Custodial U.S., 439, 1609, 704.6 (Emphasis supplied.) concluded compulsion "inherent surroundings,"7 458, 1619, 714, consequently, safeguards "incommunicado individuals police-dominated atmosphere, resulting self-incriminating without full constitutional rights." 445, 707. subsequent decisions, specifically stressed it nature triggered necessity adherence specific holding. Orozco Texas, 394 324, 89 1095, 22 311 (1969); Mathis 391 88 1503, 20 381 (1968). See generally Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 247, 93 2041, 2058, 36 854, 874 (1973). Petitioner's placed situation asks us now ignore grounded squarely explicit detailed assessment peculiar "nature setting in-custody interrogation," That Courts so suggested Lumbard Caiello, 420 471, 473 (CA2 1969): 12 " 'It compulsive aspect interrogation, strength content government's suspicions time questioning conducted, led impose regard questioning.' 13 directly supports applicable interviews concerning liability, When subject ; thus aspects situation, interview.8 14 An Government shown simply does present elements found inherently coercive require indeed hardly basis implicitly defined "focus," S.Ct., L.Ed.2d, 706. well true, "starting records exhibited him. But amounts more than saying return signed can prosecution. 15 recognize, course, possibly situations, virtue circumstances, characterized behavior officials overbear petitioner's will resist bring confessions freely self-determined ." Rogers Richmond, 365 534, 544, 81 735, 760, 768 (1961). claim raised, duty appellate court, including Court, "to examine entire make independent determination ultimate voluntariness." Davis North Carolina, 737, 741-742, 1761, 1764, 895, 898 Proof kind none relevant coercive. Frazier Cupp, 731, 739, 1420, 1424, 684, 693 740-741, 1763-64, 897-98. Bazelon noted, free coercion," 363, 743 (footnote omitted). Accordingly, 17 Affirmed. 18 STEVENS took consideration case. 19 MARSHALL, concurring While prescribed (1966), following warning him: 21 23 Under arrest stayed, recited above satisfied Amendment. If given, join 24 BRENNAN, dissenting. 25 respectfully dissent. view because affirms conviction "(a)lthough 'focus' holding." Ante, 347 formal "custody" determinative warnings. Circuit is, here, interrogated surroundings where, "custody," practical respond returns comparable psychological pressures Dickerson, 413 1111 Oliver, 505 301 (1974). Interrogation conditions consequence compelling disclosures, having same consequence, peas pod. Oliver states requires suppression statements: 26 "The application turn simple axis questioned. As repeatedly indicated, defendant 'or way.' emphasized (Miranda ) accused disclosures. test differentiates mere witness purpose securing conviction; serves 'of determining adversary process begun, i. e., investigative machinery government directed toward when, rights.' 27 "Since protection expressly itself, required, treats commences prospective significantly restrained. point reached, unreasonable treat compelled disclosure protected unless, waived. Adequate warnings, (sic) counsel, essential waiver effective. 28 requirement set forth Dickerson rests underlying commencement proceedings marked taking I.R.S., assigning Division, commenced preparation questioned return, explaining mission, dual criminal-civil I.R.S. created three key misapprehensions taxpayer. 29 'Incriminating elicited reliance upon taxpayer's misapprehension inquiry, obligation respond, consequences doing must regarded equally violative protections confession extracted proper warnings.' 1116 added). 30 effect these 'compel' provide obtain proceeding, much way placing physical restraint leads compulsion. Thus, tantamount deprivation suspect's 'freedom way,' referred Miranda." 304-305. (Footnotes omitted.) 31 reverse remand new trial. See, E. g., Taglianetti 398 558, 566 (CA1 1968), aff'd another ground, 316, 1099, 302 Mackiewicz, 401 219, 221-222 (CA2), cert. denied, 393 923, 253, 258 (1968); Jaskiewicz, 433 415, 417-420 (CA3 1970), 400 1021, 91 582, 632 (1971); Browney, 421 48, 51-52 (CA4 1970); Prudden, 424 1027-1031 (CA5), 831, 62, 62 (1970); Stribling, 437 765, 771 (CA6), 402 973, 1661, 137 MacLeod, 436 947, 950 (CA8), 907, 1378, 647 Robson, 477 13, (CA9 1973); Hensley 406 481, 484 (CA10 1968); but cf. Lockyer, 448 417, 422 1971). (1969). claimed hearing fully dressed first testimony. On petition writ challenge aside, stated: decide while "custodial interrogation" mean gave great contemporaneous manuals "psychologically oriented," 448, 1614, 708, principal factor contributing successful isolating unfamiliar "for other subjugate examiner." 457, 714. Four Members joined Black; dissenters largely prisoner prison surroundings.

Category: 0