Opinion ID: 4158686
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Express Questioning

Text: ¶16 Express questioning does not encompass every inquiry directed to the suspect. It covers only those questions designed to elicit incriminatory admissions. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 602 n.14 (1990). See also Doe v. U.S., 487 U.S. 201, 211 (1988) (Unless some attempt is made to secure a communication——written, oral or otherwise——upon which reliance is to be placed as involving [the accused's] consciousness of the facts and the operations of his mind in expressing it, the demand made upon him is not a testimonial one. (quoting J.H. Wigmore, 8 Wigmore on Evidence, § 2265 (4th ed. 1988))). ¶17 It is the nature of the information the question is trying to reach, therefore, that determines whether it is inquisitorial. If that information has no potential to incriminate the suspect, the question requires no Miranda warnings. Id. at 211 n.10 (In order to be privileged, it is not enough that the compelled communication is sought for its content. The content itself must have testimonial significance.). ¶18 Detective Buchanan's question did not constitute express questioning because it sought nothing that could be potentially incriminating. Although his question was certainly designed to obtain a response, the only information it sought was whether Mr. Harris would like to make a statement; it did not seek the statement itself. The response to such a question is either yes or no, and neither would have any testimonial significance whatsoever. Thus, Detective Buchanan's question 10 No. 2014AP1767-CR did not constitute express questioning because the constitutional privilege applies only to the search for incriminating evidence.