McKune v. Lile

Last updated
McKune v. Lile
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 28, 2001
Decided June 10, 2002
Full case nameMcKune, Warden, et al. v. Robert G. Lile
Citations536 U.S. 24 ( more )
122 S. Ct. 2017; 153 L. Ed. 2d 47; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4206
Case history
PriorLile v. McKune, 24 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Kan. 1998); 224 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2000), reversed and remanded
Holding
The state's consequences for non-participants of the SATP program do not constitute a violation of the respondent's Fifth Amendment rights.
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
PluralityKennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
ConcurrenceO'Connor
DissentStevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that Kansas' Sexual Abuse Treatment Program (SATP) served a vital penological purpose and determined that allowing minimal incentives to take part in the SATP does not equal compelled self-incrimination as prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. [1] There were three main points to the case that were used to determine the SATPs were constitutional as summarized by the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA). These included the distinct findings that, “[t]he SATP in Kansas is supported by the legitimate penological objective of rehabilitation”, that, “the fact that Kansas does not offer immunity or privilege in response to statements made by participants does not render the SATP invalid under the [fifth] amendment”, and that the, “consequences that follow for nonparticipation, do not, under the Kansas plan, combine to create compulsion, thereby infringing upon the participant’s [fifth] amendment right”. [2] Due to the plurality of the case, no singular decision was held as a majority. [3]

Contents

Background

Previously, the respondent, Robert G. Lile, was charged with the rape of a female high school student. He convinced her to enter his car and, at gunpoint, made her perform oral sodomy on him and at a different location he continued on to rape her. He was then convicted on all charges of rape, aggravated sodomy and aggravated kidnapping in State v. Lile. [4] Before he was to be released, officials ordered him to take part in the SATP program to further ensure that upon release he would not rape again. By taking part in the program, participants must fulfill an “Admission of Responsibility” form that encompasses the participant's entire sexual history whether or not charges have been brought upon the past acts that are admitted. If the participant refuses, he is then transferred to another prison where he has access to decreased privileges. The results of the SATP form do promote the end goal of the program but is not held as privileged information. [1]

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [5]

The following three components are necessary to implicate the privilege against self-incrimination: the privilege must ordinarily be invoked, the statement must be incriminating, and the statement must be compelled. The United States Supreme Court held that the privilege against self-incrimination was not self-executing. If a witness “desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been ‘compelled’ within the meaning of the Amendment. ”To qualify as incriminating there must be a “real danger” of prosecution, and not merely a “remote and speculative possibilit[y].” [6]

Lile's argument

Respondent Lile felt that his Fifth Amendment rights were being infringed upon. By participating in the SATP he was subject to accept responsibility for his past sexual actions. This acceptance of responsibility could have been deemed criminal and could be brought against him thus making him a witness against himself. Officials had previously informed him that his privileges would be reduced from a level III to a level 1 which would amount to, ”the automatic curtailment of his visitation rights, earnings, work opportunities, ability to send money to family, canteen expenditures, access to a personal television, and other privileges”. [1] Lile would also be moved from a medium security prison to a maximum security prison, “where his movement would be more limited, he would be moved from a two-person to a four-person cell, and he would be in a potentially more dangerous environment”. [1] He declined to fill out the “Admission of Responsibility” form and felt the penalties incurred for nonparticipation in the program was sufficient evidence of unconstitutional compulsion. [6]

State's argument

While the SATP program required admission of a complete sexual history and included a polygraph, the results were solely used for purpose of the program. The SATP is an 18-month program that involves heavy counseling to reduce the chances of the participant's likelihood of recidivism. [1] It relies on the participant's admission of past sexual acts as part of the rehabilitation process. While the results are not privileged, the state has claimed that the results have never been used to charge or prosecute an inmate. [1] The two main reasons the program does not offer immunity for admission of any criminally deemed activity are because the, “potential for additional punishment reinforces the gravity of the participants’ offenses and thereby aids in their rehabilitation”, and the, “State confirms its valid interest in deterrence by keeping open the option to prosecute a particularly dangerous sex offender”. [1] The reasoning behind the defendant's decreased privileges was a result in the move of the defendant to a more secure prison facility. The change in facility was brought on because spaces were needed for those who chose to participate in the SATP as it was held at the medium security prison. [1]

Opinion of the Court

The decision was handed down by Justice Kennedy and, “concluded that the SATP serves a vital penological purpose, and that offering inmates minimal incentives to participate does not amount to compelled self-incrimination prohibited by the Fifth Amendment”. [1] Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, and Thomas joined the majority. Justice O'Connor followed the main holding but disagreed with the rationale in her concurrence. Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, followed with a dissent. [7] The result was a Plurality Opinion.

Plurality opinion

Justice Kennedy delivered the judgment and focused on three different aspects of the state's actions to determine the constitutionality of the SATP. Firstly, the program must have a penological objective and it was found that the SATP did have an objective which included both rehabilitation and deterrence. [3] Second, any consequences faced by those who choose not to participate must relate to the ultimate goals of the program. [3] These consequences were brought forth by the non-privileged aspect of the program. It allows for the participant to realize that their actions have consequences. Lastly, the consequences presented must not cause compulsion and, “must, ‘not constitute atypical and significant hardships in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life’”. [3] It was found that, “the penalties facing [the] respondent are the same as those imposed for prison disciplinary violations [which] does not make them coercive”. [1] It was also found that, “Lile was transferred from the prison that offered SATP simply to make room for other inmates who might participate in the SATP”, and it was not a consequence of his declination of participation. [3] Another contributing factor for why the consequences for Lile not participating in the SATP were not found as compulsory were because the prison sentence was not extended in any way and credit for good behavior or his chances or parole were not affected. [3]

Concurrence

Justice O’Connor agreed with the majority but wanted a more useful ruling that covered situations outside of the narrow facts presented in this case. She agreed that moving the defendant to a maximum security prison and decreasing his privileges did not constitute compulsion under the Fifth Amendment. [1] However, she disagreed with the plurality for not setting forth a comprehensive decision about what constituted compulsion under the Fifth Amendment. [1] Justice O’Connor felt that the “atypical and significant hardship” standard presented by the plurality should actually be broader. [3] She stated that she does not “ agree that the standard for compulsion is the same as the due process standard [that was] identified in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U. S. 472 (1995)”. [1]

Dissent

Justice Stevens’ dissent found that the combined effect of the consequences presented to Lile were, “in fact severe, but even if that were not so, the plurality’s policy judgment does not justify the evisceration of a constitutional right”. [1] Justice Stevens also felt that alternatives to the SATP program could have been utilized. For example, the state could not prove that confidential treatment would harm the goals of the program. [6] Stevens concluded that, “[n]o matter what the goal, inmates should not be compelled to forfeit the privilege against self-incrimination simply because the ends are legitimate or because they have been convicted of sex offenses". [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Miranda</i> warning Notification given by U.S. police to criminal suspects on their rights while in custody

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. These rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings.

The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no allegation that their names could have caused an incrimination.

In criminal law, self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself generally, by making a statement, "to an accusation or charge of crime; to involve oneself or another [person] in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof"..

In the common law, spousal privilege is a term used in the law of evidence to describe two separate privileges that apply to spouses: the spousal communications privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege.

United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), was United States Supreme Court case involving Webster Hubbell, who had been indicted on various tax-related charges, and mail and wire fraud charges, based on documents that the government had subpoenaed from him. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The Supreme Court has, since 1976, applied the so-called “act-of-production doctrine.” Under this doctrine, a person can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against the production of documents only where the very act of producing the documents is incriminating in itself.

Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the defense of qualified immunity, under which government actors may not be sued for actions they take in connection with their offices, did not apply to a lawsuit challenging the Alabama Department of Corrections's use of the "hitching post", a punishment whereby inmates were immobilized for long periods of time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution addresses criminal procedure and other aspects of the Constitution. It was ratified, along nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment applies to every level of the government, including the federal, state, and local levels, in regard to a US citizen or resident of the US. The Supreme Court furthered the protections of this amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that providing personal information at the scene of an accident does not infringe on one's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.

Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled on the issue of whether the government's grant of immunity from prosecution can compel a witness to testify over an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Saunders v. the United Kingdom was a legal case heard by the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence as included in the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6 paragraphs 1 and 2.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court considered the position of a suspect who understands their right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona and is aware that they have the right to remain silent, but does not explicitly invoke or waive the right.

Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), 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.

Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that involuntary blood samples, taken by a skilled technician to determine intoxication, do not violate substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This case was only the second time the Court considered whether police could forcibly enter inside a suspect's body to extract evidence. Writing for a 6–3 majority, Justice Tom C. Clark argued that blood tests were necessary as a matter of public policy to ensure traffic safety on roads and highways, and that "modern community living requires modern scientific methods of crime detection." Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William O. Douglas both wrote dissenting opinions in which they argued that the involuntary blood sample taken in this case was "repulsive" and violated substantive due process.

South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prosecutors may use a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test as evidence of guilt and that the introduction of such evidence at trial does not violate the suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States</span> Legal status in the United States

Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States have been challenged on a number of constitutional and other bases, generating substantial amount of case law. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld sex offender registration laws each of the two times such laws have been examined by them. Those challenging the sex offender registration and related restriction statutes have claimed violations of ex post facto, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection and search and seizure. A study published in fall 2015 found that statistics cited in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are often cited in decisions upholding the constitutionality of sex offender policies are unfounded. Several challenges to some parts of state level sex offender laws have been honored after hearing at the state level.

<i>Ellis v. United States</i> (1969) United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case

Ellis v. United States of America, 416 F.2d 791, is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, in 1969. It addressed the question of a witness's refusal to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. The court concluded that when a non-indicted witness who has waived their Fifth Amendment privilege by testifying voluntarily before a grand jury and with knowledge of their privilege, their waiver extends to a subsequent trial based on an indictment returned by the grand jury that heard their testimony.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evidence Act 2006</span>

The Evidence Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand that codifies the laws of evidence. When enacted, the Act drew together the common law and statutory provisions relating to evidence into one comprehensive scheme, replacing most of the previous evidence law on the admissibility and use of evidence in court proceedings.

Illinois v. Perkins, 496 US 292 (1990), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that undercover police agents did not need to give Miranda warnings when talking to suspects in jail. Miranda warnings, named after the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, are generally required when police interrogate suspects in custody in order to protect the right not to self-incriminate and the right to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. However, the Court ruled that potential coercion must be evaluated from the suspect's point of view, and if they are unaware that they are speaking to police, they are not under the coercive pressure of a normal interrogation.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ Paul, Myers. "Sexual Abuse Treatment Programs: Choices and Consequences". National District Attorneys Association. Archived from the original on 25 November 2010. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jonathan M., Rund. "MCKUNE V. LILE: EVISCERATION OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION THROUGH THE REVIVAL OF BOYD V. UNITED STATES" (PDF). Retrieved 20 March 2012.[ permanent dead link ]
  4. ↑ State v. Lile, 237 Kan. 210, 211-212, 699 P.2d 456, 457-458 (1985).
  5. ↑ "Bill of Rights and Later Amendments". Historic Documents. Independence Hall Association. Retrieved 21 March 2012.
  6. 1 2 3 Abigail E., Robinson. "Treating the Sex Offender at Any Cost: Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Compelled SelfIncrimination in the Prison Context [McKune v. Lile, 122 S. Ct. 2017 (2002)]" (PDF). Retrieved 25 March 2012.
  7. ↑ "McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002)". Law and Legal Research. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.