Document: 496 U.S. 582 110 S.Ct. 2638 L.Ed.2d 528 PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner,v.Inocencio MUNIZ. No. 89-213. Argued Feb. 27, 1990. Decided June 18, Syllabus Respondent Muniz was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol on a Pennsylvania highway. Without being advised his rights Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694, he taken to booking center where, as routine practice, told that actions and voice would be videotaped. He then answered seven questions regarding name, address, height, weight, eye color, date birth, current age, stumbling over two responses. also asked, unable give, sixth birthday. In addition, made several incriminating statements performed physical sobriety tests when asked submit breathalyzer test. refused take test advised, first time, rights. Both video audio portions tape were admitted at trial, convicted. His motion new trial ground court should have excluded, inter alia, videotape denied. The Superior Court reversed. While finding testing exhibited rather than testimonial evidence within meaning Fifth Amendment, concluded Muniz's answers other verbalizations and, thus, portion been suppressed in its entirety. Held: judgment is vacated remanded. 377 Pa.Super. 382, 547 A.2d 419 (1988), 1 Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion with respect Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, IV, concluding only response birthday question constitutes custodial interrogation purposes Self-Incrimination Clause Amendment. Pp. 588-600, 602-605. 2 (a) privilege against self-incrimination protects an "accused from compelled testify himself, or otherwise provide State communicative nature," Schmerber California, 757, 761, 1826, 1830, 908, but not by produce "real evidence," id., 764, S.Ct., 1832. To testimonial, communication must, "explicitly implicitly, relate factual assertion disclose information." Doe United States, 487 201, 210, 108 2341, 2347, 101 184. 588-590. 3 (b) direct are rendered inadmissible merely because slurred nature speech incriminating. Under progeny, any slurring lack muscular coordination revealed responses constitute nontestimonial components those Requiring suspect reveal manner which articulates words, like requiring him properties sound reading transcript, see States Dionisio, 410 1, 93 35 67, does not, without more, compel "testimonial" privilege. 590-592. 4 (c) However, just delivery, content answer supported inference mental state confused. required communicate express implied fact belief confronted "trilemma" truth, falsity, silence, historical abuse aimed. By hypothesis, interrogation's inherently coercive environment precluded option remaining silent, so left choice himself admitting truth did know birthday, answering untruthfully reporting accurate (which incriminating). Since court's holdings constituted unwarned challenged, this suppressed. 592-600. 5 (d) utterances during prompted officer's dialogue concerning consisted primarily carefully scripted instructions how likely perceived calling verbal response. Therefore, they "words actions" constituting interrogation, "voluntary." officer administering limited her role providing relevant information about consent law. She questioned whether understood wished These focused inquiries necessarily "attendant to" legitimate police procedure 6 BRENNAN, joined O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, Part III-C fall outside protections need Although Rhode Island Innis, 446 291, 100 1682, 64 297, nonetheless admissible "for record-keeping only," therefore "routine question" exception exempts Miranda's coverage secure "biographical data necessary complete pretrial services," Horton, 873 F.2d 180, 181, n. 2. 600-602. 7 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, WHITE, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, "booking" do warrant application P. 608. 8 J., announced REHNQUIST, C.J., JJ., joined, MARSHALL, III-C, joined. filed concurring part, result dissenting post, p. 606. part 9 J. Michael Eakin, petitioner. 10 Richard F. Maffett, Jr., Harrisburg, Pa., respondent. 11 Court, except III-C. 12 We must decide case various drunken-driving suspect, performing series tests, I 13 During early morning hours November 30, 1986, patrol spotted respondent Inocencio passenger parked car shoulder When inquired needed assistance, replied had stopped could urinate. smelled breath observed eyes glazed bloodshot face flushed. directed remain until condition improved, gave assurances so. But returned vehicle, drove off. After pursued down highway pulled over, perform three standard field tests: "horizontal gaze nystagmus" test, "walk turn" "one leg stand" test.1 these poorly, informed failed drinking. 14 transported West Shore facility Cumberland County Central Booking Center. Following practice receiving persons suspected intoxicated, videotaped ensuing proceedings. recorded, time (nor previously) 694 (1966). Officer Hosterman age. responded each questions, address Muniz, "Do you what your birthday?" offered inaudible reply, repeated, "When turned six years old, remember was?" responded, "No, don't." 15 next requested earlier initial roadside stop. reveals jerked noticeably walk very straight line, balance one more seconds. latter counts 30. Moreover, "attempted explain difficulties tasks, often further clarification tasks perform." 390, 419, 423 (1988). Finally, Deyo designed measure expelled breath. read Commonwealth's Implied Consent Law, 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1547 (1987), explained law refusal automatic suspension driver's license year. number law, commenting process inebriation. ultimately At point, signed statement waiving questioning intoxicated. 17 into Muniz' bench trial,2 along arresting testimony remarks time. convicted violation 3731(a)(1) (1987). contending excluded relating "because completed prior [Muniz's] warnings." App. Pet. Cert. C-5—C-6. denied motion, holding " 'requesting driver, alcohol, analysis violate [his] [the] procured no warnings required.' Id., C-6, quoting Commonwealth Benson, 280 20, 29, 421 383, 387 (1980). 18 On appeal, appellate agreed "to later before camera, required" such elicit physical, Pa.Super., 387, A.2d, 422. concluded, however, "when begins yield . afforded invoked." Ibid. dexterity discussing "are precisely sort we expressly protected [previous cases]," 423, 'reveal[ed] thought processes.' 389, 423. explained: "[N]one spontaneous, voluntary verbalizations. Rather, clearly presented detention communications elicited received warnings, evidence." 423.3 Concluding entirety, reversed conviction remanded trial.4 Supreme review, 522 575, 559 36 (1989), granted certiorari. 493 916, 275, 107 256 (1989). II 19 Amendment5 provides "person shall criminal witness himself." text delineate ways person might "witness himself," cf. 761-762, 6, 1831, 908 (1966), long held protect "protects accused nature." 1830. "[I]n order accused's itself, explicitly information. Only 'witness' 184 20 reaffirmed our previous understanding individuals legal compulsion courtroom "informal exerted law-enforcement officers in-custody questioning." 461, 1620-1621. Of course, "remain proper element enforcement." 478, 1630. "without safeguards crime contains compelling pressures work undermine individual's will resist speak where freely." 467, 1624. Accordingly, protection requires special "procedural safeguards." 444, 1612. "Prior questioning, warned has right make may used him, presence attorney, either retained appointed." Unless "voluntarily, knowingly intelligently" waives rights, ibid., introduced prosecution's chief subsequent proceeding. 21 This implicates both "compulsion" context questioning. Because after proceedings completed, focus informational balancing finally surrounding III 22 phase recorded proceedings, delivery As found, "Muniz's certainly led finder infer confusion failure indicated drunkenness prohibited safely operating vehicle." argues, admission contravene Amendment principles interrogation. consider arguments turn. A. 23 agree contention inability articulate words clear due "the tongue mouth," Brief Petitioner 16, itself component Hosterman's introductory questions. supra, drew distinction between evidence" self-incrimination. noted Holt 218 245, 252-253, 31 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021 (1910), Holmes written '[t]he prohibition man use moral extort exclusion body it material.' U.S., 763, acknowledged "both federal courts usually offers fingerprinting, photographing, measurements, write identification, appear court, stand, assume stance, walk, particular gesture." Embracing view privilege's contours, bar 'communications' 'testimony,' makes source 'real evidence' it." Using "helpful framework analysis," intoxicated forced blood sample, sample scope obtained "[p]etitioner's capacities way implicated." 765, 24 since applied physical" contexts produced through some volitional act suspect. Wade, 388 218, 87 1926, 1149 (1967), participate lineup repeat phrase provided witnesses listen voice. reflected "compulsion exhibit characteristics, knowledge have." 222, 1930; 222-223, 1930 (suspect "required identifying characteristic"). Gilbert 263, 1951, 1178 handwriting exemplar, explaining "in contrast written, characteristic [the privilege's] protection." 266-267, 1953. And 67 (1973), suspects transcript "voice recordings solely witnesses' voices, said." 7, 768. 25 voice, B 26 end inquiry, incriminating, answer's content; trier (that date) confused.6 amicus curiae argue trigger concerns physiological functioning brain," 21, asserted every bit makeup timbre 27 characterization addresses wrong question; "fact" inferred said concern status brain describes correct present drawn evidence. Schmerber, example, determine thereby draw Amendment's protection, simply concerned suspect's body, entail suspect: "Not even shadow upon enforced involved extraction chemical analysis." contrast, instead directly contained high concentration affirmative though same physiology. See ibid. ("[T]he neither suspect's] nor act"). case, "impaired faculties" can fairly characterized aspect physiology, rise impairment nature.7 28 recently 2347. reached conclusion addressing reasoning progeny: 29 "The accordingly implicated line cases beginning ], 'to have,' guilt.' 222-223 [87 1929-1930]. [93 768]; Gilbert, 266-267 1953-1954]. It 'extortion accused,' Couch 409 [322] 328 611, 616, 34 548] [ (1973) ] attempt force contents own mind,' Curcio 354 118, 128 [77 1145, 1151-1152, 1225] (1957), Clause. 'Unless communication—written, oral otherwise—upon reliance placed involving accused's] consciousness facts operations mind expressing it, demand one.' Wigmore 2265, 386." 210-211, 2348. 30 canvassing recognized cases,8 "[t]hese policies served spare having reveal, indirectly, offense share thoughts beliefs Government."9 213, 2349. definition reflects awareness abuses "Historically, intended prevent extract sworn incriminate him. Such ecclesiastical Star Chamber—the inquisitorial method putting oath uncover uncharged offenses, another source. major thrust undergirding compulsion." 212, 2348 (citations omitted); Andresen Maryland, 427 463, 470-471, 96 2737, 2743-2744, 49 627 (1976). core, fierce 'unwillingness subject cruel trilemma self-accusation, perjury contempt,' Doe, (citation omitted), defined operation Chamber, wherein choose revealing private forsaking their committing perjury. Nobles, 422 225, 233, 95 2160, 2167, 45 141 (1975) ("The compulsory 'a inner sanctum individual feeling proscribes intrusion self-condemnation' ") (quoting 322, 327, 615, 548 (1973)). 32 explore outer boundaries today, decision flows concept's core meaning. "a recurrence Inquisition if stark brutality," Ullmann 350 422, 428, 76 497, 501, 511 (1956), evident "compelled himself" least whenever modern-day analog historic trilemma—either faces identical choices, Miranda, choices analogous hence raise similar concerns.10 Whatever else include, therefore, articulated encompass all that, place "cruel trilemma." consistent recognition "[t]he vast majority thus testimonial" "[t]here few instances statement, convey assert facts." Whenever belief,11 confronts (whether based falsity) component. 33 approach accords post-Schmerber nontestimonial; confront trilemma. 2347-2348, upholding writing exemplars involve situations personal facts, truthfully falsely thoughts. "mere 1953 (emphasis added). Had composition, testimonial; "[n]o claim [was] matter." 267, 1953.12 sign form privacy interest foreign bank records. spoke hypothetical identify banks, accounts, records, "communicate[d] assertions, implicit explicit, [n]or convey[ed] Government." 215, 2350. execution directive "forc[e] suspect] mind," 9, "nonfactual statement." 11, 2349, 11. knew whatever reason, calculate date, created 10, supra. believe (an incorrect guess well untruthful). truthful faculties impaired, (he birthday) different (correct date)) reasonably expected lucid provide. Hence, impaired stemmed, response, response.13 self-incrimination, conclusion. conclude C argues age—did term cases. referred "interrogation" actual "questioning initiated enforcement officers." clarified definition, "goals effectuated extended 'its functional equivalent.' Arizona Mauro, 481 520, 526, 1931, 1935, 458 297 (1980), "functional equivalent" include "any (other normally attendant arrest custody) focuses perceptions intent police." 301, 1689-1690 (footnotes Illinois Perkins, 292, 296, 2394, 2397, 243 (1990). "[a]ny unusual susceptibility defendant persuasion important factor determining" known. 302, 8, 1690, 8. Thus, includes given susceptibilities knows "have accused," Harryman Estelle, 616 870, 874 (CA5 1980), 37 disagree age qualify investigatory purposes. above, Innis perspective suspect." 2397. 'biographical services.' Amicus Curiae 12, (CA8 1989). found "requested B16, related police's administrative concerns.14 context, thereto IV 38 second arrest: attempting comprehend audible statements.15 argued performance themselves audiorecorded Miranda. 39 suppress paltry '[r]equiring driver [sobriety] testimonial.' Super., 387).16 With statements, "none verbalizations," "elicited 40 disagree. performed. narrow exceptions here.17 worded instructions, legitimate. "voluntary" sense interrogation.18 South Dakota Neville, 459 553, 564, 15, 103 923, 74 748 (1983) (drawing analogy "police request fingerprinting photography" inquiry blood-alcohol "interrogation "). 41 Similarly, require suppression examination. prepared script worked, Pennsylvania's consequences ensue refuse. refusal, directly, commented offering waiting couple drinking water, refused.19 42 absence trial.20 603-604, Law. procedure, response.21 V 43 entire suppressed.22 reversing vacated, inconsistent opinion. 44 ordered. Chief whom STEVENS join, part. 46 join Court's although suppressed, reason BRENNAN. dissent "sixth 47 holds violated says: 48 [i.e., ' silence,' ante, 597]. untruthful)." Ante, 598-599. assumption human behavior, wrong. felt fabricate false who cannot letters chart feels letters; call speaker's veracity. flawed predicate base automatically 1929-1930, calls exhibition one's characters. 1953-1954, (1967). "shadow accused." All Holmes' material." 6. 50 here effort check able simple mathematical exercise. Indeed, presumably come "booking exception" refers elsewhere coordination. If demonstrate level coordination, there why That sought here. permissible examine Schmerber's much system affected processes purpose. 51 Surely relevant, examination course admit third chart. worst, utter mistaken guess. likewise attempted "I don't know." potential giving bad truth-falsity-silence predicament renders 52 For substantially reasons, unnecessary recognizes. 53 reverse entirety Pennsylvania. five members remand, harmless error. 55 concur III-B Muniz. reasons discussed below, infra, apprise asking question, 56 disagree, BRENNAN's warranted, extend known preceded 57 connection products circumstances combined detailed 1689, warnings. 58 directions count aloud responses, 59 * 60 create yet Miranda: exception. (1990) (creating undercover posing fellow prison inmate). fundamental principle doctrine easily courts. 441-442, 1610-1611; Fare C., 442 707, 718, 99 2560, 2568, 61 197 (1979); 495 308-309, 2403 (MARSHALL, dissenting). position, adopted necessitate difficult, time-consuming litigation "routine," biographical information, recordkeeping purposes, are—despite testimony. far better maintain clarity preface want trial. asserts apply 601 'designed incriminatory admissions,' 602, 13; citing Avery, 717 1020, 1024-1025 (CA6 1983) (acknowledging "[e]ven relatively innocuous may, light response"); Mata-Abundiz, 1277, 1280 (CA9 (holding situation"); Glen-Archila, 677 809, 816, (CA11 1982) ("Even proceeded [sic] incriminating")). Even regardless "designed" obtain key circumstances, Cf. 7. engage 62 Here, questions—regarding age—were believed ("Any determining suspect"). acknowledges, "stumbl[e] age," 586; specifically, give looking initially influence, regularly strongly implies purpose "recordkeeping." then, standard.1 63 issue, did: indicate mind. 598-599, 12. Estelle Smith, 451 454, 464-465, 1866, 1873-1874, 68 359 (1981). (1) correctly, indicating lucidity, (2) incorrectly, implying (3) answer, impairment. license, impaired. inform finds inapplicable undoubtedly testimonial) "custodial interrogation." my view, case—in particular, apparent intoxication—rendered officers' conduct "reasonably evoke response." 1689-1690. recounts, 602-604, instructed tests. times Law wanted 604. prompt most sober volunteer Officers good observations, 13-19 (testimony Spotts), 19, observations—that trouble explanation indicate, understand intoxication 20-21, statements. 65 completely ignores actions. suspect," viewed isolation. 1690. emphasized "unusual susceptibility" means eliciting 8; 610-611. 531, 1937, (1987) (STEVENS, dissenting) (police "interrogated" allowing converse wife "at conversation] statement"). intoxication, response.2 product 66 concedes "one-leg-stand" 603, 17. Also indisputable directions; counting, basis 599; 612. permissible, "except extent [they] tendency slur already be] [evidence]." reasons. First, matter, slurring. turn supporting so.3 And, contrary assertion, stand incorrectly counted Spanish six, skipping two. skipped "two," itself. Second, importantly, "incriminating" fully accurately stated "[b]y 'incriminating response' refer response—whether inculpatory exculpatory—that prosecution seek introduce trial." 5, 5. 476-477, 1629 manner; distinguish degrees incrimination. alleged 'exculpatory' thinks irrelevant. receive session affirm court.4 measures person's jerk follow object moving side vision other. premised whereas everyone's jerking turning side, onset occurs fewer turning, extreme angles becomes distinct." R. Erwin et al., Defense Drunk Driving Cases 8A.99, pp. 8A-43, 8A-45 heel toe nine paces, pivot, back paces. pace nine. air seconds, counting There 14-minute delay completion period, briefly engaged conversation Hosterman. segment shown 29. admissions ruling custody completed. Bruder, 488 109 205, 102 172 Art. Constitution explains provision 'offers Amendment.' 386, Conway, 368 488, 498, 534 541, 546 (1987)). rest independent adequate ground. Michigan Long, 463 1032, 3469, 77 1201 (1983). Malloy Hogan, 378 84 1489, 653 (1964), applicable Fourteenth consists degree 'which impairs judgment, clearness intellect, normal essential safe automobile.' Griscavage, 512 540, 545, 517 1256, 1258 (1986) deleted). See, e.g., 211, 2348, (1988) unprotected characteristics [other] content. distinguished serve lead evidence") added); Baltimore Dept. Social Services Bouknight, 549, 555, 900, 905, 992 (individual document tangible item "may [Fifth] incrimination thing demanded" "clai[m] benefits production amount testimony"). 212-213, 2348-2349 Murphy Waterfront Comm'n New York Harbor, 52, 55, 1594, 1596-1597, 678 (1964) (internal citations omitted)): "[T]he founded 'our unwillingness contempt; preference accusatorial justice; fear self-incriminating inhumane treatment abuses; fair play dictates state-individual government contest load," .; inviolability personality enclave life," distrust self-deprecatory statements; realization privilege, sometimes shelter guilty," innocent." applies nonverbal conduct; actor's another. 209-210, 2346-2348, (1966) ("A nod head-shake 'testimonial' 'communicative' spoken words"); Braswell 99, 122, 2284, 98 (KENNEDY, ("Those assertions [contained producing subpoenaed documents] effectively acts"). pressure respond threat contempt sanctions, "inherently 1624, sanctions (either religious lying prosecutions perjury), indirectly (false prove links (albeit falsely) lied police, guilty conscience). Despite differences, "[w]e satisfied embodied informal 1620-1621; 458, 1619 (noting "intimate questioning"). 600-601, express, 1930, (1967) ("[T]o purportedly uttered robber [and dictated police] nature; characteristic, guilt" reflect suspect); 768, (where already-prepared transcripts, said" suspects). protest Tr. Oral Arg. inapposite. critical point communicated question. Putting way, cared answer. stems then-existing evidenced (1981), defendant's psychiatric nature. psychiatrist focusing account crime. analyzing "statements defendant] made, omitted," 464, 1874, prognosis "future dangerousness" testified effect capital sentencing hearing. investigative disclosures matter; rather, relied remarks—both omitted—to pose society future nevertheless "Fifth substance examination." 1874 presumed drawing inferences mind, 561-562, 921, (1983), true well: premise responding explains, "[r]ecognizing 'booking exception' mean, falls obtaining waiver ask booking, admissions." 13. 1983); 1982). Most discernible, them suggested excuses circumstances. accord many courts, reasoned measuring reflexes, dexterity, acts. Weatherford State, 286 Ark. 376, 692 S.W.2d 605 (1985); People Boudreau, 115 App.Div.2d 652, N.Y.S.2d 489 Brennan, 386 Mass. 772, 438 N.E.2d (1982); Badon, 401 So.2d (La.1981); Arsenault, N.H. 109, 336 244 (1975). challenge occasion review it. consist requests qualifies (in Spanish) duration (though it), instruction significance. today (or counting) credit determination (both sample) voluntary. conclusion, cite defining introduction submission compelled, State's permit refuse comment "compel" 562-564, 921-923. 765-766, 1832-1833, 9. "there pain, danger, severity [or seeking evidence] almost inevitably cause prefer confession undergoing 'search,' 1833, "[i]f wishes attempts discover evidence, forgo advantage test." 563, 922 ("Fifth proffered alternative painful, dangerous, severe, violative beliefs, 'confession' claims extraordinary circumstance parties us error harmless. free, remand. "express 300-301, Furthermore, proposed serves need, possessed birth. moreover, suggests Regardless intent, Supra, An additional Pursuant cases, 28-29, allotted minutes "observation." finished approximately minutes, wait Given technical "observing" appears opportunity silence A conduct. 468, 37, ("[I]t impermissible penalize exercising stood mute claimed accusation"). Griffin 380 609, 85 1229, 1233, 106 (1965) forbids guilt"). continue serious reservations limitation Mara, 32-38, 774, 781-784, extends furnish himself. 33-35, 782-783. least, cooperation. 36-37, 783-784. 3, interpretation. 604-605, 19. showing examination, issues Court.

Category: 0