Search results
Syllabus. Police placed undercover agent Parisi in a jail cellblock with respondent Perkins, who was incarcerated on charges unrelated to the murder that Parisi was investigating. When Parisi asked him if he had ever killed anybody, Perkins made statements implicating himself in the murder. He was then charged with the murder.
Facts. After obtaining information that a murder suspect was being held in jail on an unrelated charge, police placed an undercover agent in jail with the suspect. The agent engaged the suspect in conversations, and the suspect then made incriminating statements about the murder.
In Illinois v. Perkins, I an undercover law enforcement officer posed as an inmate in order to elicit incriminating statements from a murder suspect being held on unrelated charges. The trial court granted a mo-tion to suppress the statements because the undercover officer had not given Miranda warnings to the suspect prior to the questioning. On
illinois v. LLOYD PERKINS is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 4, 1990. The case was argued before the court on February 20, 1990.
Perkins was in jail on suspicion for murder. His cellmate (and prison snitch), Charlton, told police that Perkins had confessed to him. The police put an undercover officer, Parisi, in the jail cell, under the guise of being another prisoner.
Justice Kennedy. delivered the opinion of the Court. An undercover government agent was placed in the cell of respondent Perkins, who was incarcerated on charges unrelated to the subject of the agent’s investigation. Respondent made statements that implicated him in the crime that the agent sought to solve.
Kennedy. 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," ...
