ILLINOIS v. PERKINS

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
88-1972
Petitioner 
Illinois
Respondent 
Perkins
Advocates
(By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent)
(Argued the cause for the petitioner)
(Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

While being held in jail, Perkins freely confessed to committing a murder to an undercover police officer who was posing as another inmate.

Question 

Did the undercover police officer violate the accused's Miranda rights as protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion 
Decision: 8 votes for Illinois, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

The Court held that conversations between suspects and undercover officers are not afforded Miranda protection since they are not done in a "police-dominated atmosphere" where compulsion to confess is present. "It is the premise of Miranda that the danger of coercion results from the interaction of custody and official interrogation," argued Justice Kennedy. There was no danger of coercion in this case.

Cite this Page
ILLINOIS v. PERKINS. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 19 June 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1972>.
ILLINOIS v. PERKINS, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1972 (last visited June 19, 2014).
"ILLINOIS v. PERKINS," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed June 19, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1972.