Martinez was never charged with a crime nor were his

Martinez was never charged with a crime, nor were his answers used
against him in a criminal prosecution, but he brought a 1983 action
alleging chavez violated his 5th and 14th amendment rights. 9th says
Martinez wins.
2. Whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity depends on
whether the officer’s alleged conduct violated a con right. → court says
no violation of Martinez’s con rights
a. Textual argument: court views a “criminal case” to require at the
very least the initiation of legal proceedings
b. Prophylactic rules are not constitutional rules so violations of
them does not violate the constitutional rights of any person
c. Chavez’s failure to read Miranda to Martinez did not violate con
rights and cannot be grounds for a 1983 action
3. DP claim:
a. Court says Chavez’s behavior cannot be characterized as
“egregious” or “conscience shocking”
b. Lewis: official conduct “most likely to rise to the conscience-
shocking level,” is the “conduct intended to injure in some way
unjustifiable by any government interest.”
i. The need to investigate whether there had been police
misconduct was a justifiable government interest

c. Two elements: law enforcement misconduct and that it is so
egregious that it violates DP
i. Says not in bad faith bc of need to investigate whether
police conduct was justifiable in this case
4. Souter:
a. Martinez has no limiting principle → he wants it to extend to
civil liability which would change the constitutional law of 5 and
14A
i. There might be a claim if there was a powerful standalone
showing → but none here
ii. Due process: remand for consideration
5. Scalia:
a. 1983 does not provide remedies for violations of judicially
created prophylactic rules. A P must establish violation of a
federal constitutional or statutory right to bring a 1983 claim
6. Stevens:
a. Agrees with CoA: the interrogation was an immediate
deprivation of constitutionally protected liberty
7. Kennedy:
a. An actionable violation arose the second the torture occurs. The
constitutional protection isn’t held off on until later criminal
proceedings take place
8. Ginsburg:
a. Self-incrimination clause applies at the time the police use
severe compulsion
9. Court unanimous that there was no violation of 5A, but don’t agree on
14A. Majority say there could be a DP claim → remand to determine
10.DP clause provides greater protection than 5A does
11.Here: Failure to give miranda did not constitute a cause of action
under 1983
ii. California : law enforcement officers stomach pump suspect → thought he had
drugs in body
1. Court said use of stomach pump did constitute a due process violation
f. Miranda’s Constitutional Status:
i. Statute: legislatively overruled Miranda, but wasn’t used for years
1. Restates due process for admission of confessions
ii. Dickerson v. US:
1. Constitutionality of congress’ attempt to overrule miranda
2. Miranda basically = a constitutional rule → otherwise not applicable to
the states
3. We have no business imposing criminal procedure on states unless
there is a constitutional rule → to uphold miranda it means they were
constitutionally based