Hughes v. State6/17/1997
Justice Marshall criticized the plurality's recognition of the routine booking question exception, stating that "even if a routine booking question exception to Miranda were warranted, that exception should not extend to any booking question that the police should know is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, regardless of whether the question is 'designed' to elicit an incriminating response...." See Muniz, 496 U.S. at 610-11, 110 S. Ct. at 2655, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 558 (Marshall, J., dissenting)(citation omitted)(emphasis added). Justice Marshall further explained: "Although the police's intent to obtain an incriminating response is relevant to inquiry, the key components of the analysis are the nature of the questioning, the attendant circumstances, and the perceptions of the suspect. Accordingly, Miranda warnings are required before the police may engage in any questioning reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response." Id. (citation omitted). The remaining four Justices found it "unnecessary" to examine the applicability of the booking question exception defined by the plurality because, in their view, "Muniz's responses to the videotaped 'booking' questions were not testimonial and do not warrant application of the [Fifth Amendment] privilege." Muniz, 496 U.S. at 608, 110 S. Ct. at 2654, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 556 (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring in the result). Hence, while the Muniz decision indicates that some members of the Supreme Court supported a routine booking question exception, the opinion does not reflect a consensus of the Court as to the scope of that exception.
B.
Prior to the Muniz decision, a routine booking question exception to Miranda had gained widespread acceptance among lower courts. See, e.g., U.S. v. Doe, 878 F.2d 1546 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Morrow, 731 F.2d 233 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1230, 104 S. Ct. 2689, 81 L. Ed. 2d 883 (1984); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905, 104 S. Ct. 1683, 80 L. Ed. 2d 157 (1984); United States v. McLaughlin, 777 F.2d 388 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Disla, 805 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Glen-Archila, 677 F.2d 809 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 874, 103 S. Ct. 165, 74 L. Ed. 2d 137 (1982). The justification for the exception was that an arrestee is not subjected to the coercive atmosphere of custodial interrogation that Miranda was intended to prevent when he or she is asked a question that is not intended to elicit an incriminating response. See Mills v. State, 278 Md. 262, 268, 363 A.2d 491, 494 (1976) (and cases cited therein); see also Com. v. Kacavich, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 941, 550 N.E.2d 397, 397 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990)(stating that "routine booking inquiries ... are not interrogation within the meaning of the Miranda rule"). That is to say, because booking questions generally are not designed to evoke incriminating answers, courts reasoned that they do not rise to the level of "interrogation," as contemplated by the Supreme Court in Miranda. In Maryland, the Court of Special Appeals has applied this reasoning to uphold the validity of questions regarding a suspect's name, address, and place of employment. See Clarke v. State, 3 Md. App. 447, 451, 240 A.2d 291, 294 (1968)(stating that these questions "were not intended to elicit answers which would incriminate the Appellant"); Propst, May & May v. State, 5 Md. App. 36, 43, 245 A.2d 88, 92 (1968)(upholding validity of question about address and stating that "we do not think that routine booking procedures are the kind of interrogation covered by Miranda in the absence of unusual circumstances...."); Grimes v. State, 44 Md. App. 580, 586, 409 A.2d 767, 771 (1980)(relying on Clark
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|