Pennsylvania v. Muniz
United States Supreme Court
496 U.S. 582, 110 S. Ct. 2638, 110 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1990)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Inocencio Muniz (defendant) failed roadside sobriety tests and was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Muniz was videotaped while at the booking center. Muniz was asked several basic background questions, such as his age, address, and height. An officer also asked Muniz the date of his sixth birthday. Muniz’s response was slurred, and he said he did not know. The police also performed the physical sobriety tests again. Muniz was later advised of his Miranda rights for the first time. At trial, the booking-center recordings were admitted into evidence. Muniz was convicted. Muniz moved for a new trial, arguing that the video evidence should have been suppressed because it was incriminating and obtained before he was read his Miranda warnings. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed, ordering a new trial. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to review the matter. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Rehnquist, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.