Oregon v. Mathiason

Background

A state police officer investigated a home burglary and, after the victim named a man as a suspect, left a card asking him to call. The man, who was on parole, came to the state patrol office, was told he was not under arrest, and met the officer behind a closed office door. The officer said the police believed he was involved and (falsely) that his fingerprints were found; the man confessed within minutes. Only after that did the officer give the formal Miranda warnings and make a taped statement. Oregon’s highest court called the setting a "coercive environment" and suppressed the confession.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reversed. It said Miranda warnings apply to "custodial interrogation"—that is, questioning when a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom in a significant way. The Court emphasized that the man came voluntarily, was told he was not under arrest, and left the station at the end of the interview. The Court rejected the idea that any interview at a police station or any coercive aspects automatically trigger Miranda. The officer’s false statement about fingerprints did not change the custody analysis.

Real world impact

After this ruling, police are not required to give Miranda warnings to every person they question simply because the interview occurred at a station or felt coercive. People who voluntarily visit police offices and are told they are not under arrest may be treated as noncustodial. The decision was a summary reversal and the case was sent back to state court, so further proceedings will follow.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall argued the facts showed pervasive coercion and that warnings should have been required; Justice Stevens stressed the parole status complication and wanted full argument. Justice Brennan wished full briefing and oral argument.