Supreme Court of the United States
Arizona v. Mauro
May 4, 1987481 U.S. 520
Summary
Justice Powell's majority opinion held that police did not interrogate Mauro by permitting his wife, at her insistence, to speak with him while an officer openly recorded their conversation, despite Mauro's earlier invocation of counsel. The officers neither questioned him about the crime nor employed a psychological ploy; their awareness that he might incriminate himself did not make the encounter interrogation. The Court reversed the Arizona Supreme Court and remanded. Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, dissented, reasoning that the officers exploited the custodial setting to arrange a conversation they knew was reasonably likely to produce incriminating statements, making it the functional equivalent of interrogation.
Holding
- Whether the monitored and recorded spousal conversation constituted interrogation after Mauro invoked counsel.. Under these circumstances, allowing Mauro to speak with his wife in the presence of an officer who openly recorded the conversation was not interrogation, and the Federal Constitution did not prohibit using his statements at trial.
Docket 85-2121
Cited authorities
- U.S. Const. amend. V