Moran v. Burbine

Background

A young woman, Mary Jo Hickey, was found injured and later died. Police arrested Brian Burbine on an unrelated breaking-and-entering charge. Burbine's sister called the public defender's office, and an assistant public defender (Allegra Munson) called the police around 8:15 p.m. The caller was told the police were "through" with him for the night, but later the police questioned Burbine that evening. Before each interview, officers read Miranda warnings and Burbine signed three written waivers and then gave three written confessions. He did not ask for a lawyer. Lower courts disagreed about whether the police conduct required suppression of those statements.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court majority focused on whether the waivers were knowing and voluntary. It said events outside the suspect's knowledge cannot make a valid waiver invalid. Because the officers gave the Miranda warnings, obtained written waivers, and Burbine never requested counsel, the Court held the waivers were valid. The Court also rejected arguments under the Sixth Amendment because formal charges had not yet been filed, and it found no Fourteenth Amendment due process violation on these facts.

Real world impact

The decision means that, as a matter of federal constitutional law, police need not tell a suspect about an attorney's phone call before questioning if the suspect knowingly and voluntarily waives Miranda rights. The ruling leaves room for states to set different, stricter standards under state law. It also clarifies that Miranda warnings and an uncoerced waiver remain central to admissibility.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, dissented. He argued that misleading an attorney and keeping a suspect ignorant of counsel's efforts undermines fairness and that many state courts and professional standards require suppression in such situations.