Pennsylvania v. Muniz | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued Feb. 27, 1990 Decided June 18, 1990 | |
Full case name | Pennsylvania v. Inocencio Muniz |
Docket no. | 89–213 |
Citations | 496 U.S. 582 (more) 110 S.Ct. 2638 |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Brennan (except for Part III–C) |
Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 US 582 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Self-incrimination Clause of the 5th Amendment and the meaning of “testimonial” under the 5th Amendment. A drunk-driving suspect, Muniz, made several incriminating statements while in police custody, and the Supreme Court held that only one of these statements was inadmissible because it was incriminating and testimonial.[1] This testimonial statement was the suspect’s confused response when the police officer asked him for the date when he turned six years old.[2] The other statements were admissible because they either counted as physical evidence for 5th Amendment purposes[3] or fell under the routine booking exception to Miranda v. Arizona.[4]
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search