Illinois v. Perkins
496 U.S. 292 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, as protected by Miranda warnings, is not implicated when an incarcerated suspect voluntarily makes incriminating statements to an undercover law enforcement officer whom the suspect does not know is a government agent.
Facts:
- In 1984, Richard Stephenson was murdered, and the crime remained unsolved.
- Two years later, an inmate named Donald Charlton informed police that his former fellow inmate, Lloyd Perkins, had confessed to the Stephenson murder while they were incarcerated together.
- Police located Perkins, who was being held in a county jail on an unrelated charge of aggravated battery.
- Police placed an undercover agent, John Parisi, and the informant, Charlton, in the same cellblock as Perkins.
- Parisi and Charlton posed as fellow inmates who were planning an escape.
- During a conversation about the escape plan, Parisi asked Perkins if he had ever killed anyone.
- Perkins, believing he was speaking to fellow inmates, voluntarily recounted the details of the Stephenson murder to impress them.
- At no point during the conversation did Parisi identify himself as a law enforcement officer or provide Perkins with Miranda warnings.
Procedural Posture:
- Lloyd Perkins was charged with the murder of Richard Stephenson.
- In the state trial court, Perkins filed a motion to suppress the incriminating statements he made to the undercover agent.
- The trial court granted the motion to suppress.
- The State of Illinois, as the appellant, appealed the suppression order to the Appellate Court of Illinois.
- The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the trial court's decision, siding with Perkins, the appellee.
- The State of Illinois petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an undercover law enforcement officer's questioning of an incarcerated suspect, without providing Miranda warnings, violate the suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. An undercover law enforcement officer posing as a fellow inmate is not required to give Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before asking questions that may elicit an incriminating response. The core concern of Miranda v. Arizona is the 'police-dominated atmosphere' that generates 'inherently compelling pressures' which undermine a suspect's will to resist. These pressures are absent when a suspect is unaware he is speaking to a law enforcement officer, as the element of coercion from the suspect's perspective is missing. Miranda forbids coercion, not strategic deception, and Perkins' statements were voluntary boasts made to a person he viewed as an equal, not a state agent with power over him.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The statements should be inadmissible because the fundamental conditions requiring Miranda warnings—custody and interrogation by a police agent—were present. The majority's exception is inconsistent with Miranda's rationale, which protects against any police tactic, including deception, that compels a suspect to confess without full awareness of their rights. The inherent psychological pressures of confinement make a suspect vulnerable to such ploys, and the police deliberately exploited this vulnerability. This decision undermines Miranda's clear, bright-line rule and creates a loophole for circumventing a suspect's Fifth Amendment rights.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
No. While I agree that Miranda does not apply because the 'inherently coercive' environment is absent when the suspect does not know he is speaking to a police agent, the police conduct here raises serious Due Process concerns. The deliberate deception and manipulation used to extract the confession may have violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of fundamental fairness by rendering the confession involuntary. The case should be remanded for the lower court to determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the confession was obtained in a manner so offensive that it must be condemned under the Due Process Clause, irrespective of the Miranda issue.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant exception to the Miranda rule, clarifying that the 'custodial interrogation' trigger requires the suspect's awareness that they are being questioned by a state agent. The decision distinguishes between official coercion, which Miranda prohibits, and strategic deception, which is permissible so long as it does not render a confession involuntary under the Due Process Clause. This holding empowers law enforcement to use undercover agents to question incarcerated suspects about uncharged crimes without providing Miranda warnings, thereby facilitating the gathering of intelligence and confessions within correctional facilities.
Unlock the full brief for Illinois v. Perkins