Minnesota v. Murphy (1983)
- Docket
- 82-827
- Decided
- 1983-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the Fifth Amendment require suppression of a probationer's incriminating admissions where the probationer is required to meet with his probation officer and to be truthful, and the probation officer has reason to believe that the probationer's answers to her questions are likely to be incriminating? Conclusion: No. Justice Byron R. White, writing for a 6-3 majority, reversed the lower court. The Supreme Court held that admissions made to a probation officer about a crime unrelated to the probation are admissible in subsequent prosecution. A state may require a probationer to meet with his officer and discuss matters that may affect his probationary status, but this does not create an exception to the rule that one must assert the privilege against self-incrimination. Murphy could have asserted that privilege when his officer asked the questions that led to the incriminating answers, but he failed to do so. Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented, arguing that the state should have to prove that Murphy knew his rights and knowingly waived them. The facts of this case did not warrant application of the principle that one waive their privilege against self-incrimination unless they asserted it in a timely fashion. Justice John Paul Stevens, and Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. joined in the dissent.