Supreme Court Brief Example
1. Citation:
New York v. Quarles
467 U.S. 649 (1984)
2. Facts: A one to two paragraph explanation of the parties to the case and the injury that occurred.
The New York Police identified Benjamin Quarles as a man fitting the description of a rapist who was believed to be carrying a gun. Upon seeing the officer, Quarles, who was in a grocery store at the tie, ran from the police down the aisles of the store. The police lost sight of him for a time, and upon regaining sight of him ordered him to stop and place his hands above his head. Officer Kraft frisked the respondent and found an empty shoulder holster. After handcuffing the respondent Kraft asked him where the gun was, the respondent said, “The gun is over there,” nodding in the direction of some boxes. A gun was retrieved. The respondent was arrested and read his Miranda rights.
The gun and the statement identifying where the gun was located were excluded at trial. The court ruled that the respondent was in police custody and was improperly questioned without him Miranda warnings.
3. Issue: In most cases, within the first few paragraphs the Court will state the issue being dealt with in the case.
Can an exception be made to the Miranda rule when there is a danger to public safety?
4. Arguments for the petitioner. Include three main arguments for the petitioner. Make sure you divide the arguments into Precedent and Policy arguments.
5. Decision: Identify who wins the case. The court found in favor to the New York police.
6. Opinion: Here you must explain the reasons why the Court came to its decision, also include how the Court voted (example: 5-4, 6-3, 6-0)
The court held that a “public safety” exception can be made to the Miranda rule. Because the presence of a gun posed a significant threat to public safety, the police were presented with an “immediate necessity” of finding the gun. They were not required to waste time advising the suspect of his rights because the potential for danger was greater than the suspect’s individual rights.
7. Significance: You should discuss the significance of the Court’s ruling in terms of the expansion, restriction, or simply, the further definition of government power.
This case places a restriction on the Miranda rule, allowing police greater ability to question suspects to obtain incriminating statements.
Remember: Sometimes the significance is not directly related to the facts of the case.