Lexplug logoLexplug

Pennsylvania v. Muniz

Supreme Court of United States
496 U.S. 582 (1990)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protects an accused from being compelled to provide evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature, but it does not protect against compulsion to produce real or physical evidence. A suspect's response to a direct question is testimonial if it requires the communication of an express or implied assertion of fact or belief, thus confronting the suspect with the "cruel trilemma" of truth, falsity, or silence.


Facts:

  • A police officer observed Inocencio Muniz parked on a highway shoulder, noting Muniz's flushed face, glazed eyes, and the smell of alcohol.
  • After assuring the officer he would stay put, Muniz drove away, prompting the officer to pursue and pull him over.
  • Muniz performed poorly on three roadside field sobriety tests and admitted to the officer that he had been drinking.
  • The officer arrested Muniz and transported him to a booking center, where all proceedings were videotaped without prior Miranda warnings.
  • At the center, an officer first asked Muniz routine questions such as his name, address, height, weight, and age; Muniz stumbled over his address and age.
  • The officer then asked Muniz, "Do you know what the date was of your sixth birthday?" to which Muniz replied, "No, I don't."
  • Muniz was then instructed to perform the sobriety tests again on camera, making several spontaneous verbal statements and comments during the tests.
  • Finally, Muniz was read the Implied Consent Law, asked several questions about it, and ultimately refused to take a breathalyzer test.

Procedural Posture:

  • Inocencio Muniz was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol at a bench trial in a Pennsylvania trial court, where video and audio recordings from his booking were admitted into evidence.
  • The trial court denied Muniz’s motion for a new trial, which argued that the evidence was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.
  • Muniz (as appellant) appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
  • The Superior Court reversed the conviction, finding that the audio portion of the videotape contained testimonial evidence elicited through custodial interrogation before Muniz received Miranda warnings, and remanded for a new trial.
  • The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's (as appellant) application for review was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's petition for a writ of certiorari.

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:

Does asking a DUI suspect in custody a question that requires a testimonial response revealing the suspect's mental processes, such as the date of his sixth birthday, constitute custodial interrogation that triggers the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Brennan

Yes. While not all verbal statements made during custodial procedures are protected, a response to a question that requires the suspect to communicate a factual assertion or belief is testimonial and protected by the Fifth Amendment. The privilege against self-incrimination protects against compelled testimonial communications, not physical evidence. The slurred nature of Muniz's speech is non-testimonial physical evidence, akin to a voice exemplar. Routine booking questions (name, address, etc.) fall under a 'routine booking question' exception and are not considered interrogation. However, the question about Muniz's sixth birthday was different; it required a testimonial response because it forced Muniz to disclose the contents of his mind and confronted him with the 'cruel trilemma' of self-incrimination, falsity, or silence. Muniz's spontaneous utterances during the physical sobriety and breathalyzer tests were not the product of interrogation, as the officer's instructions were not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Chief Justice Rehnquist

No. The question about Muniz's sixth birthday did not require a testimonial response protected by the Fifth Amendment. The question was a permissible attempt to determine Muniz's mental coordination, analogous to a physical sobriety test which measures physical coordination. An inability to answer or a wrong guess is not a compelled communication of truth or falsehood but rather an exhibition of the suspect's mental state, which is a form of physical evidence. Just as police can examine a suspect's blood for alcohol, they should be able to examine the functioning of his mental processes without implicating the privilege against self-incrimination.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Marshall

Yes. The question regarding Muniz's sixth birthday required a testimonial response and was correctly suppressed. However, the majority's reasoning does not go far enough. There should be no 'routine booking question' exception to Miranda, as it complicates a clear-cut rule. Furthermore, all of Muniz's statements, including his answers to booking questions and his utterances during the sobriety tests, should have been suppressed because the police conduct was the 'functional equivalent' of interrogation. Given Muniz's obvious intoxication, the police should have known that any questions or instructions were reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses, thus requiring prior Miranda warnings for all statements to be admissible.



Analysis:

This case refines the distinction between testimonial and physical evidence under the Fifth Amendment, particularly in the context of DUI investigations. It establishes that while the physical manner of speech (e.g., slurring) is not protected, the cognitive content of a suspect's answer can be. The plurality's adoption of a 'routine booking question' exception provides law enforcement with a practical exception to Miranda, but it also creates a new line-drawing problem for courts to determine which questions are truly administrative versus those designed to elicit incriminating information. The case highlights how a single custodial interaction can generate a mix of admissible physical evidence and inadmissible testimonial evidence.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"