Chavez v. Martinez | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued December 4, 2002 Decided May 27, 2003 | |
Full case name | Ben Chavez v. Oliverio Martinez |
Citations | 538 U.S. 760 (more) 123 S. Ct. 1994; 155 L. Ed. 2d 984 |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist (in full); O'Connor (Parts I and II-A); Scalia (Parts I and II) |
Plurality | Souter, joined by Breyer (Part I and II); Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg (Part II) |
Concurrence | Scalia (in judgment) |
Concur/dissent | Stevens |
Concur/dissent | Kennedy, joined by Stevens (in full); Ginsburg (in part) |
Concur/dissent | Ginsburg |
Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which held that a police officer does not deprive a suspect of constitutional rights by failing to issue a Miranda warning. However, the court held open the possibility that the right to substantive due process could be violated in certain egregious circumstances and remanded the case to the lower court to decide this issue on the case's facts.
A complex series of concurrences and dissents were filed, many partially joined by various justices. Justice Thomas announced the judgment of the court, finding that no constitutional rights were violated. However, the only opinion to gain the votes of a majority of the court was Part II of Souter's concurrence, which consisted of a direction to the lower court to consider the substantive due process claims on remand.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search