Court Opinion

ID: 9739268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:11:31.784909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:11.252891
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, specially concurring: This case raises the issue of whether a prison inmate must be given Miranda warnings prior to interviews with prison officials who are investigating security matters within the prison. The majority opinion concludes that since defendant was not “in custody,” and was not coerced into incriminating himself, the concerns underlying Miranda are not implicated, and thus, defendant did not have a right to Miranda warnings. The Miranda warnings arose out of a concern for the inherent coerciveness which exists in situations where suspects, previously at liberty, are cut off from the outside world and placed in an antagonistic police-dominated environment. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 457-58, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 714, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1619.) These concerns are not present in situations where an individual is already serving a sentence in a State penitentiary. Appellate Justice Steigmann, dissenting in the cause below (207 Ill. App. 3d 104, 116-22 (Steigmann, J., dissenting)), carefully, fully, and accurately analyzes the goals and objectives of Miranda warnings. He concludes that Miranda has no application to the interrogation of prison inmates. I concur and fully endorse the reasoning set forth in Justice Steigmann’s well-written dissent. Since it is my belief that Miranda does not, and should not, apply to the interrogation of prison inmates, I agree that the trial and appellate courts erroneously suppressed defendant’s statements and that reversal is indicated. Accordingly, I specially concur with the result reached by the majority opinion in this case. JUSTICE BILANDIC joins in this special concurrence.