# Beckwith v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 21, 1976 · 425 U.S. 341

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426366

## Case

- **Full name:** Beckwith v. United States
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 21, 1976
- **Citations:** 425 U.S. 341; 37 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1232; 96 S. Ct. 1612; 48 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 147
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Marshall
- **Judges:** Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Marshall, Brennan, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 870 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/9426366

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that the suspect, who was questioned in his home, “hardly found himself in the custodial situation described by the Miranda Court as the basis for its holding[,]” because Miranda concerned “the principal psychological factor” of “isolating the suspect in unfamiliar sur…
- recognizing "that noncustodial interrogation might possibly in some situations, by virtue of some special circumstances, be characterized as one where 'the behavior of ... law enforcement officials was such as to overbear petitioner’s will to resist and bring about confessions…
- stating, “[w]e recognize, that noncustodial interrogation might possibly... by virtue of some special circumstances, be characterized as one where ‘the behavior of... law enforcement officials was such as to overbear petitioner’s will to resist and bring about confessions not …
- holding that a home interview was not “so inherently coercive” as to implicate Miranda, and reasoning that the holding in Miranda was “grounded squarely” in the unfamiliar, “police- dominated” setting in which most custodial interrogations take place
- concluding that “the only restraints upon [defendant’s] freedom were those caused by his medical condition, as opposed to any action on the part of the police”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Marshall,
concurring in the judgment.
While the Internal Revenue Service agents in this case did not give petitioner the full warnings prescribed in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), they did give him the following warning before questioning him:
“As a special agent, one of my functions is to investigate the possibility of criminal violations of the Internal Revenue laws, and related offenses.
“Under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, I cannot compel you to answer any questions or to submit any information if such answers or information might tend to incriminate *349 you in any way. I also advise you that anything which you say and any information which you submit may be used against you-in any criminal proceeding which may be undertaken. I advise you further that you may, if you wish, seek the assistance of an attorney before responding.” App. 65-66.
Under the circumstances of this case, in which petitioner was not under arrest and the interview took place in a private home where petitioner occasionally stayed, the warning recited above satisfied the requirements of the Fifth Amendment. If this warning had not been given, however, I would not join the judgment of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426366. Public record. Not legal advice.