Chavez v. Martinez

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 4, 2002 Decided May 27, 2003
Full case name	Ben Chavez v. Oliverio Martinez
Citations	538 U.S. 760 (more) 123 S. Ct. 1994, 155 L. Ed. 2d 984
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Plurality	Thomas (announcing judgment), joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor (Parts I and IIA), Scalia (Parts I and II)
Concurrence	Souter (concurring in judgment), joined by Breyer, Stevens (Part II), Kennedy (Part II), Ginsburg (Part II)
Concurrence	Scalia (concurring in judgment)
Concur/dissent	Stevens
Concur/dissent	Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg (in part)
Concur/dissent	Ginsburg

Chavez v. Martinez was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which held that a police officer does not deprive a suspect of constitutional rights by failing to issue a Miranda warning. However, the court held open the possibility that the right to substantive due process could be violated in certain egregious circumstances and remanded the case to the lower court to decide this issue on the case's facts.

A complex series of concurrences and dissents were filed, many partially joined by various justices. Justice Thomas announced the judgment of the court, finding that no constitutional rights were violated. However, the only opinion to gain the votes of a majority of the court was Part II of Souter's concurrence, which consisted of a direction to the lower court to consider the substantive due process claims on remand.

History

In 1997, during an altercation with the police in Oxnard, California, the respondent Martinez was shot five times. He was very seriously injured. The police officer's supervisor—the petitioner, Chavez—arrived at the scene around the same time as the paramedics. He rode in the ambulance with Martinez and accompanied him into the hospital. Throughout this time, Martinez was often conscious but in great distress, repeatedly stating that he was dying and requesting treatment. Without informing Martinez of his Miranda rights, Chavez sporadically interviewed Martinez about the incident over a period of 45 minutes. Martinez survived the incident, but was partially paralyzed and left blind.^[1] He was never charged with a crime.

Martinez sued Chavez in a §1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights had been violated. The district court found that Chavez had violated at least two of Martinez's clearly established rights: the 5th Amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself and his 14th Amendment right not to be subjected to coercive questioning. Because of this violation, the district court held that Chavez was not entitled to qualified immunity. The 9th Circuit affirmed this ruling. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari.

References

1. "permanently blinded and paralyzed from the waist down" Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 764 (2003)