October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1444
Does the Fifth Amendment bar a civil suit for coerced interrogation?
The dispute centers on whether a police officer can claim qualified immunity in a civil rights suit for a coerced confession.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The officer's counsel argued the Fifth Amendment safeguards criminal trial integrity. He stated it does not directly limit primary police conduct.
The victim's counsel argued the officer's immunity claim was mistaken. He contended the lower court ruling was incorrect.
justice_questions
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 31-35
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of the Fifth Amendment in civil litigation. It asks if the privilege against self-incrimination limits police conduct during interrogations. The outcome defines the boundary between criminal procedure and civil liability.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 21-39
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 4, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 31-35
What each side wants
The officer wants the court to allow his qualified immunity defense.
The victim wants the court to reject the officer's immunity claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 21-39
What each side says
The officer argues the Fifth Amendment protects criminal trials, not civil suits.
The victim argues the Fifth Amendment limits police conduct during interrogations.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 21-39
What the justices asked
Does the Fifth Amendment restrict police behavior in civil cases?
Can qualified immunity apply to claims of coerced confessions?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 31-35
Why it matters
This case defines the legal limits of police interrogation tactics. It determines whether officers face personal liability for coercive questioning. The ruling shapes the balance between civil rights and law enforcement authority.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 21-39
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 31-35
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 21-39
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.