Lexplug logoLexplug

Mathis v. United States

Supreme Court of United States
391 U.S. 1 (1968) (1968)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Miranda warnings are required when a person is interrogated while in custody, regardless of the reason for the custody or the nature of the investigation. The fact that an individual is imprisoned for an unrelated offense does not negate their custodial status for Miranda purposes.


Facts:

  • Mathis filed individual income tax returns for 1960 and 1961, claiming refunds.
  • The returns asserted income from two companies that evidence later suggested were nonexistent.
  • The returns were structured to show that these companies had withheld taxes sufficient to justify substantial refunds to Mathis.
  • The government paid the 1960 tax refund of $885.60 to Mathis as claimed.
  • While Mathis was serving a sentence in a Florida state prison for an unrelated offense, an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agent questioned him about his tax returns.
  • During the interviews, Mathis identified the tax returns and signatures as his own and signed documents extending the statute of limitations.
  • The IRS agent did not provide Mathis with any Miranda warnings regarding his right to remain silent or his right to counsel before or during the questioning.

Procedural Posture:

  • The United States prosecuted Mathis in a U.S. District Court (trial court) for filing false claims against the government.
  • At trial, Mathis moved to suppress the documents and oral statements he gave to the revenue agent, arguing they were obtained in violation of Miranda.
  • The District Court denied the motion and admitted the evidence.
  • A jury convicted Mathis, and he was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment.
  • Mathis (as appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
  • The Court of Appeals (appellee being the United States) affirmed the conviction.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted Mathis's petition for certiorari to review the case.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do the Miranda warning requirements apply to the interrogation of a suspect who is in custody for an offense entirely separate from the one being investigated?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Black

Yes. The Miranda warnings are required for the interrogation of a suspect in custody, even if that custody is for an offense unrelated to the investigation. The government argued that Miranda should not apply because the questioning was part of a routine tax investigation and because Mathis was in custody for a separate offense. The Court rejected both arguments, finding them to be 'minor and shadowy' distinctions. It held that tax investigations are not immune from Miranda requirements, as they can frequently lead to criminal prosecutions. More importantly, the Court found no basis in the Miranda decision to curtail the warnings based on the reason a person is in custody, stating that custody occurs whenever a person is 'deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way.'


Dissenting - Justice White

No. The Miranda warnings should not be required in this situation, as this represents an unexplained and unwarranted extension of the Miranda rule. The dissent argued that Miranda's rationale was based on the coercive atmosphere of police station interrogations of a criminal suspect. This case involved a civil tax inquiry conducted in the 'familiar surroundings' of the petitioner's prison, not a hostile police interrogation. The dissent contended that the majority's decision extends Miranda's checklist of warnings to routine civil investigations without explaining why the core reasons for the Miranda decision—combating coercion in a specific custodial setting—are relevant to these facts.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies and broadens the definition of 'custody' for Miranda purposes. It establishes that the determination of custody is objective, based on the curtailment of freedom, rather than subjective, based on the reason for that curtailment. The ruling prevents law enforcement from creating a potential loophole where they could interrogate prisoners about new crimes without providing warnings, simply because the incarceration is for a different offense. This precedent solidifies Fifth Amendment protections for any individual interrogated while imprisoned, regardless of the subject matter of the questioning.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Mathis v. United States (1968) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Mathis v. United States