Illinois v. Perkins
1990 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Illinois v. Perkins?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990),[1] was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that undercover police agents did not need to give Miranda warnings when talking to suspects in jail.[2] Miranda warnings, named after the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, are generally required when police interrogate suspects in custody in order to protect the right not to self-incriminate and the right to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.[3] However, the Court ruled that potential coercion must be evaluated from the suspect's point of view, and if they are unaware that they are speaking to police, they are not under the coercive pressure of a normal interrogation.[4]
Illinois v. Perkins | |
---|---|
Argued February 20, 1990 Decided June 4, 1990 | |
Full case name | Illinois v. Perkins |
Docket no. | 88-1972 |
Citations | 496 U.S. 292 (more) |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | motion to suppress granted April 1987, affirmed, People v. Perkins, 531 NE 2d 141 (1988), cert. granted, 493 U. S. 808 (1989) |
Subsequent | motion to suppress granted on other grounds, 207 Ill.App.3d 1124, affirmed, People v. Perkins, 618 NE 2d 1275 (1993), rehearing denied September 1993, ibid. |
Holding | |
Statements made by an incarcerated suspect to an undercover police agent are admissible as evidence, notwithstanding that the suspect was not given a Miranda warning, when the suspect did not know they were speaking to the police. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia |
Concurrence | Brennan |
Dissent | Marshall |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. V |