Upshaw v. United States

Background

A man arrested on suspicion of stealing a wrist watch was held by police for about thirty hours and questioned several times before he confessed. Detectives said they did not bring him to a magistrate sooner because they thought their case was weak and wanted to continue questioning. The trial court admitted the pre-trial confessions and convicted him; the prosecutor in the appeal later said that was error, but the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction over one judge’s dissent.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court asked whether confessions obtained while a person is kept from a magistrate in order to be questioned can be used at trial. Relying on the Court’s earlier McNabb decision, the majority held such confessions inadmissible when officers delay arraignment to secure statements. The arresting officer here admitted the delay was to keep questioning the suspect, so the Court concluded the confessions were the product of that unlawful detention and must be excluded. The Court distinguished a prior case where a confession was made before any illegal detention occurred.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents prosecutors from using confessions that result from deliberate delays in taking suspects before a magistrate. Police must generally bring arrested persons for prompt magistrate review instead of holding them for extended interrogation. The decision reversed the conviction in this case and enforces the McNabb rule in similar federal cases; the Court did not base its ruling on the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment here.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent warned the decision extends McNabb too far, arguing only confessions produced by strong psychological pressure should be barred and expressing concern the rule will unduly hinder police investigations.