Court Opinion

ID: 9454741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:57:26.989568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:17.046155
License: Public Domain

FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The Miranda1 equation is that official questioning of one who is in custody or deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way equals compulsion to answer unless the Miranda warnings or other effective means are used to insure absence of compulsion. Underlying its pronouncement were years of judicial experience with the frustrations of case by case decision as to the voluntariness of statements given by persons in police custody (most often state or local). Mathis2 and Orozco3 decide that the equation is valid in the particular situations considered, but do not suggest that compulsion to answer is to be presumed in situations where the person is not in custody or deprived of freedom of action.
It is compulsion to answer which offends against the fifth amendment provision that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Miranda decided that one in custody or deprived of freedom of action and questioned by an officer is subjected to such pressure to answer that the warnings are required in every instance.
This court is now deciding, essentially, that the official character of the revenue agent makes compulsion to answer his questions so probable that the warnings are required to prevent it. Yet the court distinguishes between the revenue agent before IRS has internally decided to consider prosecution and the revenue agent or special agent after such decision.
If a violation of the fifth amendment is really involved, I assume there are types of state agents as well as other types of federal agents who will be reached by this decision.
I think that candor on the part of a special agent who is seeking incriminating evidence is good governmental policy, and, as noted in Judge Cummings’ able opinion, the IRS has decided as a matter of policy that warnings should be given. It may well lie within federal judicial power to decide to exclude evidence obtained without such candor. But I do not believe the fifth amendment requires it.

. Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

. Mathis v. United States, (1968), 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381.

. Orozco v. Texas (1969), 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311.