Illinois v. Perkins
Significance, A Coercive Atmosphere Is Lacking, Deception And Manipulation Practiced, Compulsion Includes Police Deception
State of Illinois
That Perkins's jailhouse admission of murder to an undercover agent should be admissible, even though Perkins did not receive Miranda warnings before the questioning.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Marcia L. Friedl
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Dan W. Evers
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
4 June 1990
An undercover law enforcement officer posing as a fellow inmate need not give Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before asking questions that may elicit an incriminating response.
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964).
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
- Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 (1968).
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984).
- Illinois v. Rodriguez - Significance, Further Readings
- Hudson v. McMillian - Prison Inmate Claims Beating Violated His Civil Rights, High Court Defines Force Used On Inmates, Excessive Use Of Force Against Inmates Violates Societal Standards
- Illinois v. Perkins - Further Readings
- Illinois v. Perkins - Significance
- Illinois v. Perkins - A Coercive Atmosphere Is Lacking
- Illinois v. Perkins - Deception And Manipulation Practiced
- Illinois v. Perkins - Compulsion Includes Police Deception
- Illinois v. Perkins - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias