Legal Document

391 U.S. 1 88 Supreme Court Reporter 1503 20 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 381 Robert T. MATHIS, Sr., Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Number 726. Argued April 2 and 3, 1968. Decided May 6, Nicholas Judge Capuano, Miami, Fla., for petitioner. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. Petitioner was convicted by a jury in District on two counts charging that he knowingly filed false claims against Government violation 18 Code KF62 § 2871 sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment each count, sentences run concurrently. The frauds charged were tax refunds growing out petitioner's individual income taxes 1960 1961. Both returns these years asserted receipts from different companies which government agents unable locate evidence offered tended show nonexistent. amount claimed return calculated such way as nonexistent employers had withheld sufficient justify substantial paid refund petitioner $885.60 claimed, but record fails whether 1961 paid. A part conviction rested consisted documents oral statements obtained agent while prison serving state sentence. Before eliciting this information, did not warn any gave could be used him, right remain silent if desired well presence counsel afford one would appointed him. At trial sought several times without success have judge hold hearings prove his revenue given warnings should therefore For contention relied exclusively our case Miranda versus State Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966). rejected Appeals affirming. 376 Federal Reporter, 2nd 595. We granted certiorari decide calls reversal. it does. There can no doubt him strongly incriminating.2 In Court's stated at some length constitutional reasons why custody who is interrogated officers about matters might tend incriminate entitled warned 'that has silent, anything says court law, an attorney, cannot attorney will prior questioning, so desires.' U.S., 479, S.Ct., 1630. here seeks escape application arguments: (1) questions asked routine investigation where criminal proceedings even brought, (2) been put jail questioning there entirely separate offense. These differences are too minor shadowy departure well-considered conclusions with reference person held custody. 3 It true 'routine investigation' may initiated purpose civil action rather than prosecution. To extent investigations differ murder, robbery, other crimes. But frequently lead prosecutions, just did. fact, last visit question took place only eight days before full-fledged concededly began. And investigating compelled admit, always possibility during work end up reject immune requirements 4 also narrow scope holding making applicable 'in custody' connection very under investigation. substance distinction, effect goes whole decision designed give meaningful protection Fifth Amendment rights. find nothing curtailment persons interrogation based reason speaking 'custody' language clear unequivocal: 5 'To summarize, we when taken into or otherwise deprived freedom authorities significant subjected privilege self-incrimination jeopardized.' 478, 6 say must lawyer. 7 Thus, courts below wrong permitting introduction self-incriminating warning counsel. cause reversed remanded further consistent opinion. ordered. 8 Reversed remanded. 9 MARSHALL consideration case. 10 WHITE, whom HARLAN STEWART join, dissenting. 11 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions dissented (1966), because thought accepted interpretation having 'no support history Amendment,' 526, 1655, disagreed 'assessment (new) rule's consequences measured community values,' 537, 1660. continue believe extravagant unwise Amendment, prefer abandoned, thus avoiding reversal unquestionably voluntary traditional standards made received so-called warnings. 12 However, agree correctly decided, join unexplained extention gives issue questions1 Internal Revenue course interview indistinguishable thousands inquiries liability annually necessary adjunct operation system. said 'proper safeguards' needed 'in-custody suspected accused crime,' 467, 1624. majority states Mathis began soon after second visits Agent Lawless. This suggests view, unsupported us, raised suspicions conduct time visit.2 'tax prosecutions,' hint in-custody employee preceded within immensely broad area 'frequently lead' inquiries. tunately, compliance regulation widespread country. Nevertheless, supplemented encouraged constant investigations, data required employees whose goal settle fairly accounts between its citizens. Sometimes, course, discovered through extended checklist investigations. Certainly explanation need does cover furnishes additional support. 13 equally cavalier concluding sense phrase Miranda. Florida confining answered Lawless' questions. mere fact physical restriction conclusion coercion—pressure answer questions—usually flows certain type custody, police station someone crime. Although confined, familiar surroundings. Neither nor 'coerced' answering more citizen interviewed home Service office citizens requested come interviews. rationale relevance conducted outside allegedly hostile forbidding atmosphere surrounding suspect. willingness reverse explaining facts deeply troubling. 287 provides: 'Whoever makes presents officer civil, military, naval service States, department agency thereof, claim upon knowing false, fictitious, fraudulent, shall fined $10,000 imprisoned five years, both.' Lawless testified October 30, 1964, Penitentiary determine prepared obtain consent writing extend statute limitations return. identified signature thereon his; signed extension form. Again March 2, 1965, penitentiary, form bearing name causes arising those returns. investigator required, whenever finds 'definite indications fraud potential,' refer Intelligence Division works regularly matters. visited petitioner, full set 'Miranda warnings,' told wish discuss No asked.

Classification Label: 0