Truth serum

[Myron Moskovitz]

Truth serumNot quite. The Supreme Court held in Townsend that allowing into
evidence in a criminal trial a statement obtained via a
truth-serum-type-drug was a violation of substantive due process, because
the statement was "involuntary." It remains to be seen whether the Court
would hold mere obtaining of the statement (without using it at trial) to be
unconstitutional (in a civil rights suit, perhaps).  A few lower courts,
however, have allowed civil suits for Miranda violations. See, e.g., Cooper
v. Dupnik, 963 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.1992).

Also, note that the Court held in New York v. Quarles,  467 U.S. 649 (1984),
that a statement obtained in violation of Miranda is admissible in a
criminal trial where the police question D without advising him of his
rights, in order to "protect the public safety" (there, to find a gun hidden
nearby in a place accessible to public).  Granted, a "mere" Miranda
violation is not as serious as "coercion" that makes a statement
"involuntary" (see Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298  (1985)), but it is
possible that the Court might extend Quarles to "involuntary" statements if
the dangers to the public are as large as those posed by Eugene's examples
(nuclear bombs, etc.)

Myron



 -----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for con law professors
[mailto:CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 10:22 AM
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Truth serum


          Under Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963), the administration of
truth serum is unconstitutional. Assume that there is a relatively reliable
truth serum, and assume in any event that the government doesn't seek to
introduce the possibly unreliable statements as evidence, but rather just
wants to use them for its investigation (to discover objects, papers, or
people).

          Would such administration of truth serum still be unconstitutional
even if we're trying to track down a dirty bomb, a nuclear bomb, or a vial
of smallpox?

          Eugene

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20020614/7900d3df/attachment.htm