Pennsylvania v. Muniz

Decision Date18 June 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-213,89-213
PartiesPENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner, v. Inocencio MUNIZ
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Respondent Muniz was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol on a Pennsylvania highway. Without being advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, he was taken to a booking center where, as was the routine practice, he was told that his actions and voice would be videotaped. He then answered seven questions regarding his name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and current age, stumbling over two responses. He was also asked, and was unable to give, the date of his sixth birthday. In addition, he made several incriminating statements while he performed physical sobriety tests and when he was asked to submit to a breathalyzer test. He refused to take the breathalyzer test and was advised, for the first time, of his Miranda rights. Both the video and audio portions of the tape were admitted at trial, and he was convicted. His motion for a new trial on the ground that the court should have excluded, inter alia, the videotape was denied. The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed. While finding that the videotape of the sobriety testing exhibited physical rather than testimonial evidence within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, the court concluded that Muniz's answers to questions and his other verbalizations were testimonial and, thus, the audio portion of the tape should have been suppressed in its entirety.

Held: The judgment is vacated and remanded.

377 Pa.Super. 382, 547 A.2d 419 (1988), vacated and remanded.

Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, and IV, concluding that only Muniz's response to the sixth birthday question constitutes a testimonial response to custodial interrogation for purposes of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 588-600, 602-605.

(a) The privilege against self-incrimination protects an "accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature," Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1830, 16 L.Ed.2d 908, but not from being compelled by the State to produce "real or physical evidence," id., at 764, 86 S.Ct., at 1832. To be testimonial, the communication must, "explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information." Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 210, 108 S.Ct. 2341, 2347, 101 L.Ed.2d 184. Pp. 588-590.

(b) Muniz's answers to direct questions are not rendered inadmissible by Miranda merely because the slurred nature of his speech was incriminating. Under Schmerber and its progeny, any slurring of speech and other evidence of lack of muscular coordination revealed by his responses constitute nontestimonial components of those responses. Requiring a suspect to reveal the physical manner in which he articulates words, like requiring him to reveal the physical properties of the sound of his voice by reading a transcript, see United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 764, 35 L.Ed.2d 67, does not, without more, compel him to provide a "testimonial" response for purposes of the privilege. Pp. 590-592.

(c) However, Muniz's response to the sixth birthday question was incriminating not just because of his delivery, but also because the content of his answer supported an inference that his mental state was confused. His response was testimonial because he was required to communicate an express or implied assertion of fact or belief and, thus, was confronted with the "trilemma" of truth, falsity, or silence, the historical abuse against which the privilege against self-incrimination was aimed. By hypothesis, the custodial interrogation's inherently coercive environment precluded the option of remaining silent, so he was left with the choice of incriminating himself by admitting the truth that he did not then know the date of his sixth birthday, or answering untruthfully by reporting a date that he did not know was accurate (which would also have been incriminating). Since the state court's holdings that the sixth birthday question constituted an unwarned interrogation and that Muniz's answer was incriminating were not challenged, this testimonial response should have been suppressed. Pp. 592-600.

(d) Muniz's incriminating utterances during the sobriety and breathalyzer tests were not prompted by an interrogation within the meaning of Miranda and should not have been suppressed. The officer's dialogue with Muniz concerning the physical sobriety tests consisted primarily of carefully scripted instructions as to how the tests were to be performed that were not likely to be perceived as calling for any verbal response. Therefore, they were not "words or actions" constituting custodial interrogation, and Muniz's incriminating utterances were "voluntary." The officer administering the breathalyzer test also carefully limited her role to providing Muniz with relevant information about the test and the implied consent law. She questioned him only as to whether he understood her instructions and wished to submit to the test. These limited and focused inquiries were necessarily "attendant to" a legitimate police procedure and were not likely to be perceived as calling for any incriminating response. Pp. 602-605.

Justice BRENNAN, joined by Justice O'CONNOR, Justice SCALIA, and Justice KENNEDY, concluded in Part III-C that the first seven questions asked Muniz fall outside Miranda protections and need not be suppressed. Although they constituted custodial interrogation, see Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297, they are nonetheless admissible because the questions were asked "for record-keeping purposes only," and therefore they fall within a "routine booking question" exception which exempts from Miranda's coverage questions to secure the "biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services," United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180, 181, n. 2. Pp. 600-602.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, joined by Justice WHITE, Justice BLACKMUN, and Justice STEVENS, concluded that Muniz's responses to the "booking" questions were not testimonial and therefore do not warrant application of the privilege. P. 608.

BRENNAN, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-A, and IV, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined, the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III-B, in which MARSHALL, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III-C, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C.J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the result in part, and dissenting in part, in which WHITE, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 606. MARSHALL, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 608.

J. Michael Eakin, for petitioner.

Richard F. Maffett, Jr., Harrisburg, Pa., for respondent.

Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III-C.

We must decide in this case whether various incriminating utterances of a drunken-driving suspect, made while performing a series of sobriety tests, constitute testimonial responses to custodial interrogation for purposes of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

I

During the early morning hours of November 30, 1986, a patrol officer spotted respondent Inocencio Muniz and a passenger parked in a car on the shoulder of a highway. When the officer inquired whether Muniz needed assistance, Muniz replied that he had stopped the car so he could urinate. The officer smelled alcohol on Muniz's breath and observed that Muniz's eyes were glazed and bloodshot and his face was flushed. The officer then directed Muniz to remain parked until his condition improved, and Muniz gave assurances that he would do so. But as the officer returned to his vehicle, Muniz drove off. After the officer pursued Muniz down the highway and pulled him over, the officer asked Muniz to perform three standard field sobriety tests: a "horizontal gaze nystagmus" test, a "walk and turn" test, and a "one leg stand" test.1 Muniz performed these tests poorly, and he informed the officer that he had failed the tests because he had been drinking.

The patrol officer arrested Muniz and transported him to the West Shore facility of the Cumberland County Central Booking Center. Following its routine practice for receiving persons suspected of driving while intoxicated, the booking center videotaped the ensuing proceedings. Muniz was informed that his actions and voice were being recorded, but he was not at this time (nor had he been previously) advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Officer Hosterman first asked Muniz his name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and current age. He responded to each of these questions, stumbling over his address and age. The officer then asked Muniz, "Do you know what the date was of your sixth birthday?" After Muniz offered an inaudible reply, the officer repeated, "When you turned six years old, do you remember what the date was?" Muniz responded, "No, I don't."

Officer Hosterman next requested Muniz to perform each of the three sobriety tests that Muniz had been asked to perform earlier during the initial roadside stop. The videotape reveals that his eyes jerked noticeably during the gaze test, that he did not walk a very straight line, and that he could not balance himself on one leg for more than several seconds. During the latter two tests, he did not complete the requested verbal counts from 1 to 9 and from 1 to 30. Moreover, while performing these tests, Muniz ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1137 cases
  • Lynchburg Range & Training v. Northam
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • April 22, 2020
    ...the state constitutional question providing an independent and adequate ground for the decision. Pennsylvania v. Muniz , 496 U.S. 582, 588 n.4, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990). Defendants take from this the proposition that "it is impossible to separate Plaintiffs' state constitution......
  • Siry Inv., L.P. v. Farkhondehpour
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 3, 2020
    ...Siry’s discovery requests would " ‘disclose the contents of [Neman’s] mind’ " and therefore are testimonial ( Pa. v. Muniz (1990) 496 U.S. 582, 594, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528, quoting Curcio v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 118, 128, 77 S.Ct. 1145, 1 L.Ed.2d 1225 ), the applicability ......
  • United States v. Cruz-Mercedes
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • May 15, 2019
    ...to complete booking or pretrial services" that are "requested for record-keeping purposes only." Pennsylvania v. Muniz , 496 U.S. 582, 601, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990) ; see also United States v. Sanchez , 817 F.3d 38, 45 (1st Cir. 2016). However, the exception does not extend so......
  • Moyer v. Com., Record No. 2959-97-2.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • July 25, 2000
    ...communication by a witness that relates either express or implied assertions of fact or belief. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 594-598 [110 S.Ct. 2638, 2646-49, 110 L.Ed.2d 528] (1990). Similarly, the fact that incriminating evidence may be the byproduct of obedience to a regulatory r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • The Unconstitutionality of Protective Orders Under the Texas Family Code – Part II
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • February 1, 2022
    ...voice is not the same as a sworn communication expressing assertions of fact. U.S. v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000); Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 US 582 (1990). Further, the answers to the questions posed by the statute itself do not have to entirely encompass a criminal offense to be protected......
68 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Forms. Volume II - 2014 Contents
    • August 12, 2014
    ...1985), §§15:261, 15:262 Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), §3:25 Pennsylvania v. Muniz , 496 U.S. 582, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990), §5:03 Penry v. State , 903 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.Cr.App. 1995), §§6:15, 6:16 People v. Loomis , 156 Cal.App.3d, 1 (......
  • Self-Incrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2016 Contents
    • August 17, 2016
    ...Characteristics The Fifth Amendment does not prohibit requiring a person to exhibit physical characteristics. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 110 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990). The Fifth Amendment typically offers no protection against compulsion to submit to fingerprinting, photographi......
  • Admissions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Evidence Foundations Hearsay
    • May 5, 2019
    ...present during questioning; • if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent him at no cost. Pennsylvania v. Muniz , 496 U.S. 582 (1990). Drunk driving suspect taken to booking center and asked basic background questions without being advised of Miranda rights. Police w......
  • Self-Incrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2018 Contents
    • August 17, 2018
    ...The Fifth Amendment does not prohibit requiring a person to exhibit physical characteristics. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990). The Fifth Amendment typically offers no protection against compulsion to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, or mea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • 32 C.F.R. § 153.5 Procedures
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2021 Edition Title 32. National Defense Subtitle A. Department of Defense Chapter I. Office of the Secretary of Defense Subchapter E. Regulations Pertaining to Military Justice Part 153. Criminal Jurisdiction Over Civilians Employed By Or Accompanying the Armed Forces Outside the United States, Certain Service Members, and Former Service Members
    • January 1, 2021
    ...shall be determined and forwarded promptly to the DSS/DOJ and the designated U.S. Attorney representative. See Pennsylvania v. Muniz,496 U.S. 582, at (1990) and United States v. D'Anjou, 16 F. 3d 604 (4th Cir. 1993). The information is necessary to assist in determining what law enforcement......
  • 32 C.F.R. § 153.5 Procedures
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2022 Edition Title 32. National Defense Subtitle A. Department of Defense Chapter I. Office of the Secretary of Defense Subchapter E. Regulations Pertaining to Military Justice Part 153. Criminal Jurisdiction Over Civilians Employed By Or Accompanying the Armed Forces Outside the United States, Certain Service Members, and Former Service Members
    • January 1, 2022
    ...shall be determined and forwarded promptly to the DSS/DOJ and the designated U.S. Attorney representative. See Pennsylvania v. Muniz,496 U.S. 582, at (1990) and United States v. D'Anjou, 16 F. 3d 604 (4th Cir. 1993). The information is necessary to assist in determining what law enforcement......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT