Opinion ID: 2265739
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fourteenth Amendment analysis

Text: Diaz asserts she was subjected to interrogation without any due process, and without any advisement of her constitutional rights. She clarifies her argument is not that she was forced to testify against herself in violation of the Fifth Amendment, [25] but rather that she was unlawfully seized and interrogated in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights are violated when police misconduct in pursuit of incriminating statements shocks the conscience. [26] Conscience-shocking interrogations typically involve physical or psychological abuse. [27] An illustration of potentially conscience-shocking interrogation conduct occurred in Chavez v. Martinez, [28] where a police officer made no effort to dispel [a man's] perception that medical treatment [for his facial gunshot wound would be] withheld until [he] answered the questions put to him. [29] Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Diaz, the DOC officers subjected her to a custodial interrogation by civilians at her former place of employment without giving her an appropriate Miranda warning. But Diaz has not alleged or provided evidence suggesting she was mentally or physically coerced or abused during the interrogation. Although we certainly do not condone the DOC officers' decision to make Diaz available for interrogation in this manner by her civilian accusersin other circumstances such a decision could lead to unfortunate acts of vigilantismthe DOC officers' conduct bothers the conscience but does not shock it as required for a Fourteenth Amendment violation.