About: Illinois v. Perkins

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Illinois v. Perkins Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FIllinois_v._Perkins&graph=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org&graph=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org

Illinois v. Perkins, 496 US 292 (1990), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that undercover police agents did not need to give Miranda warnings when talking to suspects in jail. Miranda warnings, named after the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, are generally required when police interrogate suspects in custody in order to protect the right not to self-incriminate and the right to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. However, the Court ruled that potential coercion must be evaluated from the suspect's point of view, and if they are unaware that they are speaking to police, they are not under the coercive pressure of a normal interrogation.

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	Thing case Legal Case unit of work Legal case Supreme Court of the United States case
rdfs:label	Illinois v. Perkins (en)
rdfs:comment	Illinois v. Perkins, 496 US 292 (1990), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that undercover police agents did not need to give Miranda warnings when talking to suspects in jail. Miranda warnings, named after the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, are generally required when police interrogate suspects in custody in order to protect the right not to self-incriminate and the right to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. However, the Court ruled that potential coercion must be evaluated from the suspect's point of view, and if they are unaware that they are speaking to police, they are not under the coercive pressure of a normal interrogation. (en)
dcterms:subject	1990 in United States case law United States Supreme Court cases 1990 in Illinois History of law enforcement in the United States Miranda warning case law Prisoners' and ex-prisoners' rights Evidence law History of Illinois United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court United States criminal due process case law Criminal procedure Law enforcement United States Sixth Amendment assistance of counsel case law Evidence case law
Wikipage page ID	68090757 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1049451207 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	1990 in United States case law Montgomery County, Illinois Horace L. Calvo Right to silence Undercover operation Due Process Clause United States Supreme Court cases 1990 in Illinois Miranda v. Arizona Miranda warning Anthony Kennedy History of law enforcement in the United States Miranda warning case law State supreme court Prisoners' and ex-prisoners' rights St. Clair County, Illinois Suppression of evidence Admissible evidence Evidence law Thurgood Marshall William J. Brennan Jr. East St. Louis, Illinois History of Illinois Graham Correctional Center United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court Hillsboro, Illinois United States criminal due process case law Criminal procedure Law enforcement Supreme Court of the United States Work release United States Sixth Amendment assistance of counsel case law Evidence case law Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Illinois Certiorari Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Reports Illinois Appellate Court Illinois circuit courts Moses Harrison Right to counsel dbr:Thomas_M._Welch dbr:United_States_v._Henry
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/constitutional-guide-use-cellmate-informants https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=10419014020014612138 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=7645460240866553136&%23124; https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1972
sameAs	Illinois v. Perkins Illinois v. Perkins
Subsequent	172800.0 (second)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Blockquote dbt:Reflist dbt:Infobox_US_Supreme_Court_case
Dissent	Marshall (en)
docket	88 (xsd:integer)
JoinMajority	Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia (en)
LawsApplied	Miranda v. Arizona Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
OralArgument	https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1972
Prior	172800.0 (second)
USPage	292 (xsd:integer)
USVol	496 (xsd:integer)
ArgueDate	0001-02-20 (xsd:gMonthDay)
ArgueYear	1990 (xsd:integer)
DecideDate	0001-06-04 (xsd:gMonthDay)
DecideYear	1990 (xsd:integer)
Holding	Statements made by an incarcerated suspect to an undercover police agent are admissible as evidence, notwithstanding that the suspect was not given a Miranda warning, when the suspect did not know they were speaking to the police. (en)
Litigants	Illinois v. Perkins (en)
majority	Kennedy (en)
source	Illinois v. Perkins, 496 US at 297 (en) Illinois v. Perkins, 496 US at 302 (en) Illinois v. Perkins, 496 US at 307 (en)
text	The method used to elicit the confession in this case deserves close scrutiny . . . We have recognized that "the mere fact of custody imposes pressures on the accused; confinement may bring into play subtle influences that will make him particularly susceptible to the ploys of undercover Government agents." United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264, 274 . As Justice Marshall points out, the pressures of custody make a suspect more likely to confide in others and to engage in "jailhouse bravado." The State is in a unique position to exploit this vulnerability because it has virtually complete control over the suspect's environment. Thus, the State can ensure that a suspect is barraged with questions from an undercover agent until the suspect confesses. (en) Questioning by captors, who appear to control the suspect's fate, may create mutually reinforcing pressures that the Court has assumed will weaken the suspect's will, but where a suspect does not know that he is conversing with a government agent, these pressures do not exist. The state court here mistakenly assumed that because the suspect was in custody, no undercover questioning could take place. When the suspect has no reason to think that the listeners have official power over him, it should not be assumed that his words are motivated by the reaction he expects from his listeners. (en) Custody works to the State's advantage in obtaining incriminating information. The psychological pressures inherent in confinement increase the suspect's anxiety, making him likely to seek relief by talking with others. . . Similarly, where the suspect is incarcerated, the constant threat of physical danger peculiar to the prison environment may make him demonstrate his toughness to other inmates by recounting or inventing past violent acts. (en)

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (62 GB total memory, 41 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software