Document: 446 U.S. 291 100 S.Ct. 1682 64 L.Ed.2d 297 State of RHODE ISLAND, Petitioner,v.Thomas J. INNIS. No. 78-1076. Argued Oct. 30, 1979. Decided May 12, 1980. Syllabus * Shortly after a taxicab driver, who had been robbed by man wielding sawed-off shotgun, identified picture respondent as that his assailant, Providence, R.I., patrolman spotted respondent, was unarmed, on the street, arrested him, and advised him rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694. When other police officers arrived at arrest scene, twice again rights, he stated understood wanted to speak with lawyer. Respondent then placed in car be driven central station company three officers, were instructed not question or intimidate any way. While en route station, two engaged conversation between themselves concerning missing shotgun. One there "a lot handicapped children running around this area" because school for such located nearby, "God forbid one them might find weapon shells they hurt themselves." interrupted conversation, stating should turn so could show where gun located. Upon returning scene search shotgun progress, replied those but "wanted get out way kids area school," led Before trial charges kidnapping, robbery, murder another court denied respondent's motion suppress statements made regarding its discovery, ruling waived subsequently convicted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court set aside conviction held entitled new trial, concluding invoked right counsel that, contrary Miranda's mandate absence counsel, all custodial interrogation cease, vehicle "interrogated" without valid waiver counsel. Held: violation remain silent until consulted Pp. 297-303. (a) safeguards come into play whenever person custody is subjected either express questioning functional equivalent. That say, term "interrogation" refers only questioning, also words actions part (other than normally attendant custody) know are reasonably likely elicit an incriminating response from suspect. latter portion definition focuses primarily upon perceptions suspect, rather intent police. 298-302. (b) Here, no respondent; was, least form, nothing more dialogue which invited. Moreover, "functional equivalent" since it cannot said have known their respondent. There record suggest aware peculiarly susceptible appeal conscience safety children, knew unusually disoriented upset time arrest. Nor does indicate context brief would suddenly moved make self-incriminating response. may "subtle compulsion," must established suspect's product response, here. 302-308. 391 A.2d 1158, vacated remanded. Dennis Roberts, II, R. I., petitioner. John A. MacFadyen, III, Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 In 474, 1627, 694, once defendant asks lawyer, cease lawyer present. issue case whether standards promulgated opinion. 2 On night January 1975, Mulvaney, disappeared being dispatched pick up customer. His body discovered four days later buried shallow grave Coventry, R.I. He died blast aimed back head. 3 17, shortly midnight, Providence received telephone call Gerald Aubin, reported just Aubin further dropped off assailant near College section Mount Pleasant. waiting give statement, noticed bulletin board. informed officer prepared photo array, same person. thereafter, began Pleasant area. 4 At approximately 4:30 a. m. date, Patrolman Lovell, while cruising streets patrol car, standing street facing him. Lovell stopped walked towards it. so-called rights. men waited arrive, did converse respond latter's request cigarette. 5 Within minutes, Sergeant Sears arrest, gave warnings. Immediately Captain Leyden arrived. directed "caged wagon," four-door wire screen mesh front rear seats, station. Three Patrolmen Gleckman, Williams, McKenna, assigned accompany They shut doors. coerce entered vehicle, departed. 6 Gleckman initiated McKenna shotgun.1 As testified: 7 "A. point, I talking forth frequent [that nearby,] there's area, God App. 43-44. 8 apparently shared fellow officer's concern: 9 less concurred [Gleckman] factor we should, you know, continue try it." Id., 53. 10 Williams nothing, overheard officers: 11 too bad if little believe girl—would gun, maybe kill herself." 59. 12 radioed inform location gun. indicated back, traveled mile, trip encompassing few minutes. 13 returned progress. There, school." nearby field, pointed some rocks side road. 14 March 20, grand jury indictment charging kidnaping, Mulvaney. After evidentiary hearing elected testify, judge found "repeatedly completely rights." "entirely understandable [the vehicle] voice concern [for children] each other." concluded decision waiver, clearly, basis evidence heard, [sic ] intelligent [Miranda silent." Thus, passing fact sustained admissibility testimony related discovery. introduced verdict guilty counts. 15 appeal, Court, 3-2 decision, conviction. 1158. Relying Court's Brewer 430 387, 97 1232, 51 424, Mirandas' It view state appellate even though genuinely concerned about public addressed personally nonetheless coercion" equivalent within meaning holding court, insufficient support finding waiver. Having both relating discovery obtained therefore admitted evidence, trial. We granted certiorari address first Arizona. 440 934, 99 1277, 59 492. II 17 opinion, "custodial interrogation" certain procedural necessary protect defendant's Fifth Fourteenth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. More specifically, "the prosecution use statements, exculpatory inculpatory, stemming unless demonstrates effective secure self-incrimination." U.S., 444, S.Ct., 1612. Those included now familiar warnings namely, "that has silent, anything says can used law, presence attorney, afford attorney will appointed prior desires"—or 479, 1630. 18 outlined detail consequences result sought invoke safeguards. With regard noted: 19 "Once given, subsequent procedure clear. . If individual states wants time, opportunity confer present during questioning. obtain indicates before speaking police, respect 473-474, 1627-1628. 20 case, parties agreement fully when told wished consult uncontested "in custody" transported 21 issue, therefore, undisputed lawyer.2 resolving define turning consideration facts case. 22 starting point defining is, course, observed "[b]y interrogation, mean law enforcement taken otherwise deprived freedom action significant way." 1612 (emphasis added). This passage references throughout "questioning" rules apply practices involve custody. 23 do not, however, construe narrowly. "interrogation environment" created interplay "subjugate examiner" thereby undermine 457-458, 1619. evoked several For example, discussed inMiranda line-ups coached witness perpetrator. designed establish predicate interrogation. 453, 1602. A variation theme "reverse line-up" witnesses perpetrator fictitious crime, object inducing confess actual crime suspected order escape false prosecution. Ibid. survey psychological ploys, "posi[t]" guilt subject," "minimize moral seriousness offense," "to cast blame victim society." 450, 1615. clear these techniques persuasion, thought, setting, amount interrogation.3 24 considered 25 "Confessions proper element enforcement. Any statement given freely voluntarily compelling influences admissible evidence. fundamental import allowed talk benefit interrogated. Volunteered kind barred affected our today." 478, 1630 26 special required suspect simply custody, "Interrogation," conceptualized reflect measure compulsion above beyond inherent itself.4 27 conclude response5 suspect.6 focus reflects vest added protection coercive practices, objective proof underlying practice evoke thus amounts interrogation.7 But, surely accountable unforeseeable results actions, extend response.8 B 28 Turning Miranda. prong satisfied, Rather, 29 fairly said, short, children. arrest.9 30 boils down whether, Given entire appears consisted hand remarks, say Innis respond. carried lengthy harangue contention circumstances, officers' comments particularly "evocative." view, 31 erred, equating compulsion" struck responsive chord readily apparent. compulsion." But end inquiry. response.10 32 reasons stated, judgment vacated, remanded proceedings inconsistent 33 ordered. 34 WHITE, concurring. 35 prefer reverse my dissenting 424 (1977); Brewer, join 36 CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring judgment. 37 Since 694 (1966), concur 38 become adjusted strictures; neither overrule Miranda, disparage it, nor late date. fear, rationale Parts II-A II-B, clarify tension (1977), cases. introduce elements uncertainty; test, officer, available, evaluate suggestibility susceptibility accused. See, e. g., ante, 302, n. 8. Few, any, competent evaluation seemingly contemplated; psychiatrist asked expert aspects very employ extensive observation charged officers. 39 Trial judges enough difficulty discerning boundaries nuances flowing post-Miranda opinions, situation today.* 40 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 41 am substantially (1966). conduct intended produce read purposes equivalent, practical purposes, formulation, contemplates "where accused, unlikely effect." Ante, 7. requires inquiry effect typical individual, taking account kinds pressure reason know. 42 utterly loss, understand how standard applied us rationally lead conclusion m., handcuffed, searched, seat car. short away sedan Two sat beside seat. mile agreed weapon, Officer begun almost immediately 43 attempts characterize Gleckman's "no remarks" expected 303. impossible draw conclusion. simple message "talking forth" avert child's death. 44 scarcely imagine stronger suspect—any suspect—than assertion innocent killed. And person, child—a girl—a helpless, girl her school. notion interest verges ludicrous. matter fact, sake others, "display decency honor," classic technique. F. Inbau & Reid, Criminal Interrogation Confessions 60-62 (2d ed. 1967). 45 remarks obviously constituted explicitly different nominally McKenna. among accidentally These close quarters handcuffed suspect,* traveling past place believed hear attend chargeable knowledge responsibility pressures created. 46 firmly aberration, future cases adopted today accordance plain meaning. 47 STEVENS, 48 An original old coupled cold makes possible vacate Island. members force interrogated clearly requested court's rests interpretation law; thus, determination products inadmissible affirmed. 49 briefly summarized. Based information armed cabdriver vicinity College, number thorough early morning 1975. possession presumably abandoned hidden arrested. dozen scene. 37. fair infer immediate primary importance. 50 captain arrived, repeated sergeant already attorney. ordered wagon" transport third ride wagon forbid" herself.1 willing hidden.2 helped locate suppression hearing, assumed, deciding, nevertheless connection ground consented help robbery murder, impermissible rejected analysis. reversed Today, reverses resolution creating holding, constitute 52 recognizes, absolute type present.3 broadly construed include "either equivalent." 300-301.4 average listener calling direct question, punctuated mark. takes much narrower view. holds what saying doing suspect.5 represents departure principles 53 now-familiar suspects dispel atmosphere coercion necessarily accompanies interrogations. perform function effectively, viewed correct binding respective rights.6 if, chooses cut obtained, choice "scrupulously honored" See Michigan Mosley, 423 96, 104, 96 321, 326, 313, id., 110, 329, (WHITE, J., result). prohibited making deliberate suspect.7 Yet unwilling "interrogation," noting reasonable effect."8 54 From suspect's, effectiveness depends scrupulously honoring Apparent demean tend reinstate imbalance correct.9 requiring respected, appear position "interrogation."10 55 full free all, purpose question. Statements well so, By prohibiting relatively accords considerably protection. Indeed, suppose most incriminate questioned directly, certainly exclude every mark concept "interrogation."11 56 difference approach faithful adherence stinted test illustrated comparing ways communicated fears dangers posed have: 57 (1) directly Innis: 58 Will please tell me danger? (2) announced wagon: 60 sitting decide danger. 61 (3) 62 left herself. 63 anyone located.12 Under hand, form critical. implied 302; Assuming true, see infra, 314-315, seems test. second although reveal fit "reasonably response" category applies indirect example illustrates, creates incentive ignore invocation continued extract particular pressure,13 exert despite long careful punctuate marks. expectations, turns unequivocal rule trap unwary caught deception. 65 Even provided deciding remarkable undertake initial task applying noted above, Assuming, arguendo, had, offering disagreed questions,14 expressly occurred. reached definition, participating review creation stage litigation, remand findings standard. 66 event, think wrong realized implicitly assumes harangue, criminal appeals humanitarian impulses. goes appeals. 302. Finally, significance intentions footnote suggests" 303, 9. 67 assumption teachings manuals, recommend appealing sense morality often successful technique.15 Surely experience embodied manuals ignored devoid other—as general particular. 68 Innis. regularly caged wagon, Although dispute testimony, riding Innis.16 explain why, notwithstanding offered resistance acting alone, respondent.17 inconceivable professionally trained well-chosen induce disclose whereabouts shotgun.18 becomes plausible light emotionally chosen ("God "little girl" herself).19 III 69 standard, affirmed Innis' However, agree disagree disposition courts syllabus constitutes Reporter Decisions convenience reader. United States Detroit Lumber Co., 200 337, 282, 287, L.Ed. 499. conflicting exact seating arrangements, everyone heard conversation. reach To limit ambit "place premium ingenuity devise methods implement Miranda." Commonwealth Hamilton, 445 Pa. 292, 297, 285 172, 175. language suggesting 424. 1161-1162. suggestion erroneous. Our rested solely Sixth 397-399, 1238-1239. right, Massiah States, 377 201, 206, 84 1199, 1203, 246, prohibits "deliberately elicit[ing]" formal charge filed. Custody controlling; indeed, petitioner contrast, based Amendments, Amendments interpreted definitions indeed apt context, interchangeable, policies constitutional protections quite distinct. Kamisar, Miranda: What "Interrogation"? Does Matter?, Geo.L.J. 1, 41-55 (1978). "incriminating refer inculpatory exculpatory—that seek : "No distinction drawn confessions 'admissions' offense. self-incrimination protects compelled himself manner; distinguish degrees incrimination. Similarly, precisely reason, alleged merely 'exculpatory'. truly would, never impeach demonstrate untruths prove implication. meaningful word statement." 476-477, 1629. opinions totally misapprehend "will [of police] mark." Post, 312. irrelevant, bearing particular, effect. unusual persuasion important determining suggests n.7, supra. judge, officers] done drive site concealed noticing proximity blurted located, seriously argued adding confusion suggested problem dealt California Braeseke, 444 1309, 742, 720 (1980) (REHNQUIST, chambers) (difficulty rights), cited therein. 50, 52, 56; 39, 43, 47, 58. entirely wording talked danger girl. 39. timing wagon. 293, 297-298. stated: "If present." 1628. points out, 299, acutely limited "That 'interrogation' suspect." 301. limiting "likely response," confuses scope exclusionary "interrogation." Of defined quoted 301, 5, excluded fail helps tactic successful, all. "We process in-custody persons accused contains inherently work individual's resist compel freely. combat permit exercise self-incrimination, adequately effectively apprised honored." 467, 1624. 398-399, 1239, elicited" extracted involves safeguard indistinguishable. unqualified obligation refrain trying Massiah, 73 factual extremely dubious. assume interrogate efforts hope forthcoming. White, Police Trickery Inducing Confessions, 127 U.Pa.L.Rev. 581, 609-611 (1979). WHITE invokes expressing "his own deal authorities legal advice." 2, 2. supposed dispel. avoid difficulties subjective adequate guidance dealings suggestion, 6, belied application Significance Suspect's Assertion Right Counsel, Am.Crim.L.Rev. 53, (1979), author proposes stating: "Under proposed obvious. strong desire weapon's location. Innis's seeking solicit given." THE "[f]ew, contemplated [by opinion]" except observation. 304. deferring appeared good-faith judgments Like prisoner's answer waive place. 404, 1242, 424; 313 result) ("[T]he having expressed advice, authorities' insistence counsel's properly skepticism"). People Cunningham, N.Y.2d 203, 210, N.Y.S.2d 421, 425, 400 N.E.2d 360, 364-365 (1980). 60-61 heading "Urge Subject Tell Truth Sake Own Conscience, Mental Relief, Moral Well-Being, Well 'For Everybody Concerned,' Also Because Is 'The Only Decent Honorable Thing Do,' " authors advise interrogators "challenge offender display honor" religious sensibilities. testified driver. 46. ridden rode 50-52, 55-56, 38-39. Thereafter, corroborated testimony. somewhat procedure. that: remember correctly, vehicle—Innis door closed, instructions Leyden. us. There's usually us, got words, closed. opened subject. Myself, went over passenger's front." 55-56. interrogate, 46, possibility thought ploy permissible. article supra, Professor White probably chances slim. true genuine children's welfare. Am.Crim.L.Rev., 68.

Category: 0