Document: 394 U.S. 324 89 S.Ct. 1095 22 L.Ed.2d 311 Reyes Arias OROZCO, Petitioner,v.TEXAS. No. 641. Argued Feb. 26, 1969. Decided March 25, Charles W. Tessmer, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner. Lonny F. Zwiener, Austin, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner, Orozco, was convicted in Criminal District Court Dallas County, Texas, murder without malice and sentenced to serve state prison not less than two nor more 10 years. Appeals Texas affirmed conviction, rejecting petitioner's contention that a material part evidence against him obtained violation provision Fifth Amendment United States Constitution, made applicable by Fourteenth Amendment, that: 'No person * shall be compelled any criminal case witness himself.'1 2 introduced at trial showed petitioner deceased had quarreled outside El Farleto Cafe shortly before midnight on date shooting. apparently spoken female companion inside restaurant. In heat quarrel outside, is said have beaten about face called 'Mexican Grease.' A shot fired killing deceased. Petitioner left scene returned his boardinghouse sleep. At 4 a.m. four police officers arrived boardinghouse, were admitted an unidentified woman, told asleep bedroom. All entered bedroom began question From moment he gave name, according testimony one officers, free go where pleased but 'under arrest.' asked if been restaurant night when answered 'yes' owned pistol. owning one. After being second time pistol located, it washing machine backroom boardinghouse. Ballistics tests indicated gun found fatal shot. trial, held after effective date2 this Court's decision Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694, A.L.R.3d 974 (1966), court allowed over objection lawyer,3 relate statements concerning presence clearly shows questioned incriminating facts first informing right remain silent, advice lawyer making statement, appointed assist could afford hire held, with judge dissenting, admission above warnings precluded Miranda. We disagree hold use these admissions absence required flat Self-Incrimination Clause as construed 3 State has argued here since interrogated own bed, familiar surroundings, our holding should apply. It true did say 'compulsion speak isolated setting station may well greater courts or other official investigations, there are often impartial observers guard intimidation trickery.' U.S., 461, S.Ct., 1621. But iterated reiterated absolute necessity interrogating people 'in custody' give described warnings. See Mathis States, 391 1, 88 1503, 20 381 (1968). According officer's testimony, under arrest leave early hours morning. declared custody otherwise deprived freedom action significant way.' 477, 1629. (Emphasis supplied.) reached careful consideration lengthy opinions announced both majority dissenting Justices. There no need canvass those arguments again. do not, dissent implies, expand extend slightest extent decision. adhere well-considered therefore reverse4 conviction below. Reversed. 5 FORTAS took case. 6 HARLAN, concurring. 7 passage palatable me decided. my opinion, White, 504, 526, (1966). 8 Yet, despite strong inclination join Brother WHITE, Ican find acceptable avenue escape from judging case, especially light (1968), which already extended rules beyond station, protest Justices Stewart, myself, id., 5—8, 1503. Therefore, purely out respect stare decisis, I reluctantly feel acquiesce today's Court, same observing constitutional condemnation perfectly understandable, sensible, proper, indeed commendable piece work highlights unsoundness 9 whom STEWART joins, dissenting. This carries rule new unwarranted extreme. continue believe original amounted 'constitutional straitjacket' law enforcement justified neither words history reasonable view likely benefits its disadvant ges. 1602. Even accepting Miranda, extends draws straitjacket even tighter. 11 devoted large elaborate discussion subtle forms psychological pressure brought bear accused length unfamiliar surroundings. 'salient features' cases decided 'incommunicado interrogation individuals police-dominated atmosphere.' 445, 1612. danger such circumstances confidence prisoner eroded techniques successive interrogations acting friendly unfriendly roles. These best developed 'isolation surroundings,' 450, 1615. And they take time: 'the major qualities interrogator possess patience perserverance.' Ibid. period isolation, repeated interrogation, cajolery, trickery enough produced actually coerced traditional sense so safeguards deemed essential. 12 difficult requirements laid down essential prevent compulsion every conceivable house interrogation. Where defendant himself lawyer, policeman, professional criminal, become aware what silence is, sheer fancy assert answer unless advised rights intimately familiar. If warrant all, rests likelihood sufficient number exposure practices will result confessions additional imposed all possible erosion values. Hence, detailed ritual fashioned. 13 now instances in-custody questioning house. Once occurs, application automatic. simple ignores purpose thought corrosive influenct makes feasible. wholly guestion whether similar hazards exist interrogate spot, street corner home, No predicate believing normally prolonged, carried productive physical coercion much imagine duplicating person's home conditions prevalent threatening silence. Without demonstration. hardly reaches it. 14 Here, prolonged opportunity invoke procedures moved fact, conversation accounts very brief uncontradicted awake room, questions: Farleto, pistol, was. He hesitation. slow telling was, repeated. then nearby hidden. 15 unquestioned sequence events their totality would constitute lead involuntary within meaning we adjudicate claims relating pre-Miranda trials. And, realistically, Orozco refused questions him, seems most unlikely followed quarters; nothing model invoked occurred here. name description, ample club suspected gun. Surely questions, arrested anyway, searched gun, admissible relevant authorities. insists reversed failure cannot accept dilution level, equivocal unsupported experience recurring cases. apprehended quarters, brief, backed up evidence. does involve confession innocent man, guilty man wrung abuse modern methods discussed simply terse remarks who caught, almost act. reason encourage suspects consult lawyers tell them silent quizzing house, why field preface casual suspect full panoply present circumstances, answers clear help convict him. intended effect, able get suspects, guilty, arresting them, great many men unnecessary trips Ultimately necessary bring provide just discover name. process unpleasant 17 Since extension Miranda's takes into territory rationale disappears, dissent. 18 Memorandum STEWART. 19 Although HARLAN'S position, WHITE us dissented 974, only express continuing disagreement decision, also oppose broadening impact. rejected violated Fourth Amendment's unreasonable searches seizures. Our consider contention. Jo nson New Jersey, 719, 1772, 882 appears urge claim unreviewable because counsel sufficiently 'specific.' fail perceive how adequate ground fact specifically introduction statement 'was Arizona,' 428 S.W.2d 666, 672, while some apparent misunderstanding point, perhaps appropriate point once again reversal based unconstitutional leaves retry tainted

Category: 0