Illinois v. Perkins

Legal scholars have debated the legality and propriety of using cellmate informants. Some scholars find the practice a strategic deception that takes advantage of a suspect's misplaced trust in a person he thinks is a fellow prisoner. Others view the use of cellmate informants as offensive to a civilized system of justice. Law enforcement officers find that the use of cellmate informants is a method that works. Illinois v. Perkins answered some questions regarding the constitutionality of using cellmate informants. The case resolved the issue of exactly when Miranda warnings must be given. A suspect's being in custody alone does not necessitate the warnings. The impact on the suspect of both police interrogation and police custody makes custodial police interrogation so corrosive and thus requires "adequate protective devices." This decision paved the way for law enforcement officers to take advantage of using cellmate informants.