NCJ Number
131674
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 81 Issue: 4 Dated: (Winter 1991) Pages: 883-925
Date Published
1991
Length
43 pages
Annotation
The Supreme Court, in Pennsylvania v. Muniz, held that a videotape of a person suspected of driving while under the influence did not jeopardize that person's right against self-incrimination as defined by Miranda, even though the videotape was made without informing the suspect of his Miranda rights.
Abstract
The court held that the suspect's slurred speech and lack of muscular coordination constituted physical evidence which lay outside Miranda parameters and that incriminating evidence obtained through routine interrogation also lay outside the protections. This author agrees with the principal dissenting opinion which held that the entire audio portion of the videotape should have been excluded as testimonial, rather than physical, evidence delivered during express or implicit custodial interrogation. While the author supports a routine booking question exception to the privilege against compelling self-incrimination, in this case, the police officers may possibly have violated the doctrine of implicit interrogation by intending their procedures to elicit incriminating statements. 299 notes