No. The confessions can't be used because the police broke a very important rule. There's a law made by Congress that says police must take people they arrest to a judge right away. This is to make sure the arrest is legal and the person knows their rights. The police here completely ignored that law. The Supreme Court said that to force police to follow the rules, any confession they get by breaking this 'promptly-see-a-judge' rule has to be thrown out. It's not about whether the McNabbs were tortured; it's about making the police play by the rules Congress made.

Yes. The confessions should be allowed. The only thing that should matter is whether the McNabbs confessed willingly, without being threatened or hurt. The court created a new technicality that will let guilty people go free just because the police made a mistake. As long as the confessions were voluntary, they should be used as evidence.

Yes. The statements the McNabbs made can't be used as evidence because the officers didn't follow the law about taking them to a judge quickly. The Supreme Court has a duty to make sure federal courts follow civilized rules and procedures, not just the bare minimum required by the Constitution. Allowing convictions based on evidence obtained by clearly breaking the law would make the courts part of the wrongdoing. Even though Congress didn't say evidence obtained this way can never be used, allowing it would go against the whole point of having this rule. The rule is meant to prevent abuses like secret questioning and mistreatment of arrested people. Convictions based on evidence obtained through such obvious disregard for proper procedure can't be allowed, or else the courts would be undermining the fairness of the system.

The Court shouldn't overturn these convictions based on a new rule saying confessions obtained before taking someone to a judge can't be used. Confessions should only be thrown out if they were forced, and the record doesn't show the McNabbs were forced to confess. Making more technical rules like this will let guilty people go free. The Court's new rule isn't as clear as just asking if a confession was voluntary. If the McNabbs' confessions were voluntary, the fact that the officers didn't take them to a judge right away shouldn't matter, unless that failure is what forced them to confess.

As Justice Frankfurter wrote, "The history of liberty has largely been the history of observance of procedural safeguards."

In both McNabb and Mallory, the Court applied the exclusionary rule in suppressing confessions obtained in violation of the federal rule requiring that defendants be promptly taken before a judicial officer.

To be sure, this Court has squarely asserted supervisory power to regulate procedure in lower federal courts.

"In the exercise of its supervisory authority over the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts, see Nardone

Judicial supervision of the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts implies the duty of establishing and maintaining civilized standards of procedure and evidence

—that the police must with reasonable promptness show legal cause for detaining arrested persons, constitutes an important safeguard—not only in assuring protection for the innocent but also in securing conviction of the guilty by methods that commend themselves to a progressive and self-confident society. For this procedural requirement checks resort to those …

"Judicial supervision of the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts implies the duty of establishing and maintaining civilized standards of procedure and evidence. Such standards are not satisfied merely by observance of those minimal historic safeguards*** which are summarized as `due process of law'***. "

—has held that the federal courts, "in the exercise of supervisory powers,... may, within limits, formulate procedural rules not specifically required by the Constitution or the Congress."

—the Supreme Court for the first time confronted the question of how to enforce a number of different federal statutes in which the common law presentment rule had been codified.

Procedural due process does not forbid the government from depriving individuals of a protected interest, but rather requires the government to employ adequate procedures that ensure the fairness of any deprivation.

No. A conviction resting on evidence secured through a flagrant disregard of the procedure which Congress has commanded cannot be allowed to stand. Federal statutes require arresting officers to take an arrested person before the nearest judicial officer without unnecessary delay. The Court, exercising its supervisory authority over the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts, holds that statements elicited during a period of unlawful detention resulting from a failure to comply with this prompt presentment requirement must be excluded. This rule is not based on the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against compelled self-incrimination, but on the Court's duty to ensure that federal law enforcement and judicial processes operate according to civilized standards and in compliance with legislative mandates. Allowing such evidence would stultify the policy Congress enacted and make the courts accomplices in the willful disobedience of law.

Yes. The confessions should be admissible because the proper test is whether they were voluntary, not whether there was a delay in bringing the defendants before a magistrate. The majority's new rule is an overly rigorous technical requirement that broadens the possibilities for guilty defendants to escape punishment. The failure to promptly commit the defendants was an act of omission not shown to have coerced the confessions. The trial court and jury found the confessions were voluntary, and overturning the conviction on this new procedural ground is an inappropriate way to discipline police officers.

Yes. The McNabbs' incriminating statements must be excluded because the arresting officers failed to promptly present them before a judicial officer as required by federal law. This Court has a duty to maintain civilized standards of procedure and evidence in federal courts, beyond the bare constitutional requirements of due process. Permitting convictions based on evidence obtained through flagrant disregard of prescribed procedures would make the courts accomplices in willful disobedience of the law. While Congress has not explicitly forbidden the use of evidence so procured, to admit it would stultify the policy underlying this procedural requirement. The purpose of the requirement of prompt presentment is to avoid the evil implications of secret interrogation and to check the use of 'third degree' practices and other reprehensible conduct by law enforcement. Convictions resting on evidence secured by such flagrant disregard of legal procedure cannot stand without the courts themselves undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The Court should not overturn these convictions based on a new rule of evidence excluding confessions obtained in the absence of prompt presentment to a magistrate. Confessions should only be excluded if involuntary, and the record does not show the McNabbs' confessions were coerced. Creating more rigorous technical requirements for admissibility will allow guilty defendants to escape punishment. The Court's new rule is not as clear as the established test of voluntariness. If the confessions were otherwise voluntary, the officers' failure to promptly present the McNabbs to a magistrate, absent any showing this omission tended to coerce the statements, should not require reversal.

McNabb v. United States

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot