less than 1 minute read

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

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1981 to 1988

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