Court Opinion

ID: 9426366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:17:41.6269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:00.557795
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Marshall,
concurring in the judgment.
While the Internal Revenue Service agents in this case did not give petitioner the full warnings prescribed in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), they did give him the following warning before questioning him:
“As a special agent, one of my functions is to investigate the possibility of criminal violations of the Internal Revenue laws, and related offenses.
“Under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, I cannot compel you to answer any questions or to submit any information if such answers or information might tend to incriminate *349you in any way. I also advise you that anything which you say and any information which you submit may be used against you-in any criminal proceeding which may be undertaken. I advise you further that you may, if you wish, seek the assistance of an attorney before responding.” App. 65-66.
Under the circumstances of this case, in which petitioner was not under arrest and the interview took place in a private home where petitioner occasionally stayed, the warning recited above satisfied the requirements of the Fifth Amendment. If this warning had not been given, however, I would not join the judgment of the Court.