The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, February 20, 1990
Decision: Monday, June 4, 1990
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Miranda Warnings

Advocates

Dan W. Evers (By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent)
Marcia L. Friedl (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

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

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.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 8 votes for Illinois, 1 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Miranda Warnings
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a special concurrence
Brennan
Voted with the majority
White
Wrote a dissent
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Wrote the majority opinion
Kennedy
Full Opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1972/>
(last visited ).