# Orozco v. Texas

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 25, 1969 · 394 U.S. 324

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423965

## Case

- **Full name:** Orozco v. Texas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 25, 1969
- **Citations:** 394 U.S. 324; 89 S. Ct. 1095; 22 L. Ed. 2d 311; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2154
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Harlan
- **Judges:** Black, Harlan, White, Fortas, Stewart
- **Cited by:** 547 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423965

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that defendant was in custody when police entered suspect’s bedroom at 4:00 a.m. and questioned him and where, at trial, an officer testified that the suspect had been “under arrest” from the time the officers entered the bedroom and was not free to leave
- finding that a person who was interrogated while on his own bed, at home, in familiar surroundings, was “in custody” for the purposes of interrogation by four police officers when he was under arrest and not free to leave at the time of questioning
- holding that defendant’s statements, made to four officers while in his bedroom without Miranda warnings, were obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment because defendant was under arrest and not free to leave
- holding that exception to the Miranda rule was not warranted where police officers entered the defendant’s boardinghouse four hours after a murder, awakened him, and interrogated him as to whether he owned a gun
- finding custody where four officers entered the suspect’s bedroom and behaved as though he was “not free to go where he pleased but was under arrest” even though they did not actually handcuff or physically subdue the suspect, and even though he was in familiar surroundings an…

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Harlan,
concurring.
The passage of time has not made the Miranda case any more palatable to me than it was when the case was decided. See my dissenting opinion, and that of Mr. Justice White, in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 604, 526 (1966).
Yet, despite my strong inclination to join in the dissent of my Brother White, I can find no acceptable avenue of escape from Miranda in judging this case, especially in light of Mathis v. United States, 391 U. S. 1 (1968), which has already extended the Miranda rules beyond the *328 police station, over the protest of Justices Stewart, White, and myself, id., at 5-8. Therefore, and purely out of respect for stare decisis, I reluctantly feel compelled to acquiesce in today’s decision of the Court, at the same time observing that the constitutional condemnation of this perfectly understandable, sensible, proper, and indeed commendable piece of police work highlights the unsoundness of Miranda .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423965. Public record. Not legal advice.