Hughes v. State6/17/1997
, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 541. In accordance with standard police procedure, the arresting officer asked Muniz his name, address, height, weight, eye color, age, and date of birth. The officer also asked Muniz if he knew the date of his sixth birthday, to which Muniz responded that he did not. Muniz, 496 U.S. at 586, 110 S. Ct. at 2642, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 542. The responses to these questions were captured on a video tape, which was later admitted into evidence at trial. Muniz, 496 U.S. at 585-87, 110 S. Ct. at 2642, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 541-42. On appeal of his conviction, Muniz asserted, among other things, that admission of the video tape violated Miranda and the privilege against self-incrimination.
The Supreme Court agreed that the question concerning the date of the suspect's sixth birthday should have been suppressed because of its incriminating content. Muniz, 496 U.S. at 600, 110 S. Ct. at 2649, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 551. The Court explained that "the content of his truthful answer supported an inference that his mental faculties were impaired" because "the trier of fact might reasonably have expected a lucid person to [be able to] provide" that date. Muniz, 496 U.S. at 599, 110 S. Ct. at 2649, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 550. The suspect's response to that question, therefore, should have been suppressed.
More importantly for our purposes in the instant case, a plurality of the Muniz Court further agreed that responses to the first seven questions (i.e., name, address, height, weight, eye color, age, and date of birth) fell within a "routine booking question" exception to Miranda. This exception "exempts from Miranda's coverage questions to secure the '"biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services."'" Muniz, 496 U.S. at 601, 110 S. Ct. at 2650, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 552 (quoting Brief for U.S. as Amicus Curiae at 12, in turn quoting United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180, 181 n.2 (8th Cir. 1989)). As the Court explained:
"The state court found that the first seven questions were 'requested for record-keeping purposes only,' ... and therefore the questions appear reasonably related to the police's administrative concerns. In this context, therefore, the first seven questions asked at the Booking Center fall outside the protections of Miranda and the answers thereto need not be suppressed." (Footnote omitted)(emphasis added).
Muniz, 496 U.S. at 601-02, 110 S. Ct. at 2650, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 552. The Supreme Court emphasized, however, that not every question asked during the booking process necessarily falls within the routine booking question exception. See Muniz, 496 U.S. at 602 n.14, 110 S. Ct. at 2650 n.14, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 552 n.14. Quoting with approval an excerpt from an amicus brief, the Court stated:
"'Recognizing a "booking exception" to Miranda does not mean, of course, that any question asked during the booking process falls within that exception. Without obtaining a waiver of the suspect's Miranda rights, the police may not ask questions, even during booking, that are designed to elicit incriminating admissions. '" (Emphasis added).
Id. (quoting Brief for U.S. as Amicus Curiae at 13). The Muniz decision thus suggests that routine booking questions regarding the arrestee's name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and current age, which are aimed at securing "biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services," and which are asked in that context are exempt from the requirements of Miranda, unless they are "designed to elicit incriminating admissions."
Only four Justices joined in the portion of the Muniz opinion, however, that carved out this exception to Miranda. In a dissenting opinion,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|