Illinois v. Perkins

In Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292, a government undercover agent was placed in a jail cell with Perkins, who was incarcerated on charges unrelated to the murder which the agent was investigating. Using an alias and clothed in jail garb, the agent asked Perkins whether he had "done" anybody. Perkins replied affirmatively and made incriminating statements implicating him in the crime which the agent was investigating. (496 U.S. at p. 295 110 L. Ed. 2d at pp. 249-250.) Perkins asserted that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated because the government-elicited statements were not preceded by Miranda warnings. In unusually blunt and categorical language, the United States Supreme Court held that Miranda has no application to conversations between undercover police agents and inmates. "Conversations between suspects and undercover agents do not implicate the concerns underlying Miranda. The essential ingredients of a 'police-dominated atmosphere' and compulsion are not present when an incarcerated person speaks freely to someone whom he believes to be a fellow inmate. Coercion is determined from the perspective of the suspect. When a suspect considers himself in the company of cellmates and not officers, the coercive atmosphere is lacking." (Perkins, supra, 496 U.S. at p. 296.) The Court reasoned that "fidelity to the doctrine announced in Miranda requires that it be enforced strictly, but only in those types of situations in which the concerns that powered the decision are implicated." Id. at 296. The Court distinguished Mathis because the suspect in that case was aware that the inquiring agent was a government official who was investigating the possibility of noncompliance with the tax laws, thereby creating the type of intimidating surroundings addressed by Miranda. Id. at 299. Notably, the Court recognized that the bare fact of custody may not always require Miranda warnings even when the suspect knows that he is speaking to a government official, but declined to explore that issue in the context of the case before it. Id.