Hughes v. State6/17/1997
rrestees who are "booked" or otherwise processed'")(quoting Vines, 285 Md. at 376, 402 A.2d at 904). In order for this exception to apply, however, the questions must be directed toward securing "simple identification information of the most basic sort;" that is to say, only questions aimed at accumulating "basic identifying data required for booking and arraignment" fall within this exception. United States ex rel. Hines v. LaVallee, 521 F.2d 1109, 1113 & n.2. (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied sub nom., Hines v. Bombard, 423 U.S. 1090, 96 S. Ct. 884, 47 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1976). Examples of questions to which the routine booking question exception will ordinarily extend include the suspect's name, address, telephone number, age, date of birth, and similar such pedigree information.
Conversely, questions that are "designed to elicit incriminatory admissions" do not fall within the narrow routine booking question exception. Muniz, 496 U.S. at 602 n.14, 110 S. Ct. at 2650 n.14, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 552 n.14. In some instances, it is plain from the nature of the question whether it is aimed at merely gathering pedigree information for record-keeping purposes, or whether it is directed at procuring statements by the suspect that, either in isolation or in connection with other known facts, will tend to prove the suspect's guilt. The question in Muniz regarding the date of the suspect's sixth birthday falls within the latter category, as does inquiry into such obviously incriminating areas a whether or why a suspect committed a criminal act.
Even if a question appears innocuous on its face, however, it may be beyond the scope of the routine booking question exception if the officer knows or should know that the question is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Assessment of the likelihood that an otherwise routine question will evoke an incriminating response requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances in each case, with consideration given to the context in which the question is asked. The fact that the answer to a booking question assists the prosecution in proving its case is not determinative of whether a standard booking question, when posed, was likely to elicit an incriminating response. A benign question in one case may amount to "interrogation," for which Miranda warnings are required, in another case. Therefore, "courts should carefully scrutinize the factual setting of each encounter of this type," Avery, 717 F.2d at 1025, keeping in mind that the critical inquiry is whether the police officer, based on the totality of the circumstances, knew or should have known that the question was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Avery, 717 F.2d at 1024; see also Parra, 2 F.3d at 1068 (finding immigration agent's question as to suspect's identity was "interrogation" for purposes of Miranda in that it linked suspect to incriminating immigration file, but concluding that the error was harmless).
We also note that where a purportedly routine booking question provides some proof of an element of the crime for which the suspect is arrested, the booking question exception will be less likely to apply. Stated otherwise, "the closer the connection between the crime in question and the information sought, the stronger the inference that the [police officer] should have known that inquiry was 'reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.'" United States v. Minkowitz, 889 F. Supp. 624, 628 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)(quoting Muniz, 496 U.S. at 601, 110 S. Ct. at 2650, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 551). For example, in United States v. Disla, supra, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the questioning as to the defendant's residence amounted to in
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|