Pennsylvania v. Muniz
| 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. This testimonial statement was the suspect’s confused response when the police officer asked him for the date when he turned six years old. The other statements were admissible because they either counted as physical evidence for 5th Amendment purposes or fell under the routine booking exception to Miranda v. Arizona.