Other Free Encyclopedias :: Law Library - American Law and Legal Information :: Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1981 to 1988
 

New York v. Quarles - Significance, Miranda Warnings Inadequate, A Compelling Exception, Impact, Self-incrimination Clause

Petitioner

State of New York

Respondent

Benjamin Quarles

Petitioner's Claim

A police officer's failure to provide Miranda warnings before questioning the respondent about incriminating evidence did not violate Fifth Amendment rights, as the delay was justified in the interest of public safety.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Steven J. Rappaport

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Steven A. Hyman

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

12 June 1984

Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court held that an officer's immediate concern with protecting the safety and welfare of the public represented a justified exception to the Miranda rule.

Related Cases

  • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
  • Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
  • Orzoco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324 (1969).

Sources

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 4. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing, 1998.

Further Readings

  • Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. 1992.

Additional Topics

New York v. Quarles - Significance

The most important issue addressed by this case was whether an incriminating statement regarding information about where the respondent hid his gun, could be accepted as testimonial evidence at trial if a police officer failed to provide a Fifth Amendment Miranda rights warning before questioning his suspect. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed judgments of lower courts and explained that an exception…

New York v. Quarles - Miranda Warnings Inadequate

Benjamin Quarles was charged with criminal possession of a gun. (Under New York Penal Law, "any person who possesses a loaded firearm outside of his home or place of business is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.") The trial court elected to exclude the respondent's evidential testimony, "The gun is over there," and the physical evidence, a .38 caliber revolver, because…

New York v. Quarles - A Compelling Exception

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower courts. The Court found that the use of the Miranda warnings could be avoided when public safety was at issue. They explained the "immediate necessity of ascertaining the whereabouts of the gun" to ensure the safety of the public was important enough to justify an exception to Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Justices for the majority opinion rea…

New York v. Quarles - Impact

The dissenting justices pointed out that the Miranda rule did not represent a "decision about public safety; it was decision about coerced confessions." They questioned how, given the majority opinion's exception to the Miranda rule, police officers could avoid future misunderstandings when apprehending suspects. Nonetheless, the majority of justices believed their ruling to be an expression of cl…

New York v. Quarles - Self-incrimination Clause

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself . . . " In criminal cases the prosecution must prove the guilt of the defendant without forcing the accused to confess or testify. Only individuals, an…

Oregon v. Elstad - Miranda Warnings, Inadmissible Confessions?, The Second Confession Is Admissible, Dissenting Opinions, Impact, Further Readings [next] [back] Lassiter v. Department of Social Services - Significance, Further Readings

User Comments Add a comment…