New York v. Quarles
United States Supreme Court
467 U.S. 649 (1984)
Facts
A woman approached two police officers and told them she had just been raped. She provided the officers with a detailed description of her attacker, said that he had just entered a supermarket nearby, and said that he was carrying a gun. The police arrived at the supermarket and saw Quarles (defendant) inside. Quarles fit the description of the assailant, and when he saw the police, he ran to the back of the store. The police chased him and kept him in sight for all but a few seconds until he was caught. One officer frisked him and found an empty gun holster. After handcuffing him, the officer asked Quarles where the gun was, and Quarles gestured with his head saying, “the gun is over there.” The officer found the gun and read Quarles his Miranda warnings. The officers then asked Quarles about his ownership of the gun and where he got it. Quarles answered these questions. The trial court held that the statement “the gun is over there,” must be excluded because it was elicited before the police read Quarles his Miranda warnings. Furthermore, the court held that his answers to the subsequent questions had to be excluded as evidence tainted by the Miranda violation. The court also excluded the gun. The New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (O’Connor, J.)
Dissent (Marshall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
