We decline to place officers such as Officer Kraft in the untenable position of having to consider, often in a matter of seconds, whether it best serves society for them to ask the necessary questions without the. 407 (1972). After consulting with counsel, a suspect may well volunteer to repeat his statement in hopes of gaining a favorable plea bargain or more lenient sentence. See Rhode Island v. Innis, supra, at 301 (officer's subjective intent to incriminate not determinative of whether "interrogation" occurred); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, and n. 6 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.) Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. I disagree. Under New York law, any person who possesses a loaded firearm outside of his home or place of business is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The gun was the direct product of a coercive custodial interrogation. His question was prompted by a concern for public safety. See. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed by a 4-3 vote. 420 U.S., at 481. Justice Rehnquist delivered the 5-4 opinion. Quarles v. United States. But as we have pointed out, we believe that the exception which we recognize today lessens the necessity of that on-the-scene balancing process. In so holding, the Court acknowledges that it is departing from prior precedent, see ante, at 653, and that it is "lessen[ing] the desirable clarity of [the Miranda] rule," ante, at 658. As the Miranda Court itself recognized, the failure to provide Miranda warnings in and of itself does not render a confession involuntary, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S., at 457, and respondent is certainly free on remand to argue that his statement was coerced under traditional due process standards. Of course, "a defendant raising [such] a coerced-confession claim . ), p. 11 (emphasis added). 935 (1966). Respondent indicated that he would answer questions without an attorney being present and admitted that he owned the gun and had purchased it in Florida. The majority contends that the law, as it currently stands, places police officers in a dilemma whenever they interrogate a suspect who appears to know of some threat to the public's safety. First, petitioner did not claim inevitable discovery at the suppression hearing. Indeed, by the time of Malloy, the constraints of the Due Process Clause were almost as stringent as the requirements of the Fifth Amendment itself. In Tucker, the Court very clearly held that Wong Sun is inapplicable in cases involving mere departures from Miranda. ThoughtCo uses cookies to provide you with a great user experience. L. Rev. that rigidity [has also been called a] strength of the decision. Respondent nodded in the direction of some empty cartons and responded, "the gun is over there." Though the majority's opinion is cloaked in the beguiling language of utilitarianism, the Court has sanctioned sub silentio criminal prosecutions based on compelled self-incriminating statements. The Court concedes, as it must, both that respondent was in "custody" and subject to "interrogation" and that his statement "the gun is over there" was compelled within the meaning of our precedent. United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 187 (1977) (emphasis added). 58 N.Y.2d 664, 444 N.E.2d 984 (1982). After handcuffing him, Officer Kraft asked him where the gun was. On the contrary, the Miranda Court was concerned with the proscriptions of the Fifth Amendment, and, in particular, whether the Self-Incrimination Clause permits the government to prosecute individuals based on statements made in the course of custodial interrogations. JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Michigan v. Tucker, supra, at 444. The circumstances of Quarles' arrest have never been in dispute. See n. 12, infra. Admission of nontestimonial evidence of this type is based on the very sensible view that procedural errors should not cause entire investigations and prosecutions to be lost. Although I have serious doubts about the wisdom of her proposal, I will not discuss them here. Difficulties of proof and subtleties of interrogation technique made it impossible in most cases for the judiciary to decide with confidence whether the defendant had voluntarily confessed his guilt or whether his testimony had been unconstitutionally compelled. Should the answers also be incriminating, the State would be free to introduce them as evidence in a criminal prosecution. If trickery is necessary to protect the public, then the police may trick a suspect into confession. . As a leading case, this entry about New York v. Quarles tries to include facts, relevant legal issues, and the Court's decision and reasoning. If the Miranda warnings were not properly administered or if no valid waiver could be shown, then all responses to interrogation made by the accused "while in custody . Gesturing towards a stack of liquid-soap cartons a few feet away, Quarles responded: "The gun is over there."