Lanier v. South Carolina

Supreme Court

Lanier v. South Carolina

474 U.S. 25, 106 S. Ct. 297, 88 L. Ed. 2d 23, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 138, 54 U.S.L.W. 3303

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 4, 1985

Docket85-5260

StatusPublished

Cited by29 cases

This text of 474 U.S. 25 (Lanier v. South Carolina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lanier v. South Carolina, 474 U.S. 25, 106 S. Ct. 297, 88 L. Ed. 2d 23, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 138, 54 U.S.L.W. 3303 (1985).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery. He contends that his confession should have been suppressed because it was the product of an illegal arrest. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rejection of his motion to suppress the confession:

“Assuming, without deciding, that Lanier’s arrest was illegal, we nevertheless hold his confession was admissible. A confession made while the accused is in custody before any warrant for his arrest has been issued is not per se inadmissible. State v. Funchess, 255 S. C. 385, 179 S. E. 2d 25, cert. denied, 404 U. S. 915, 92 S. Ct. 236, 30 L. Ed. 2d 189 (1971). Voluntariness remains as the test of admissibility. Id. Even if the arrest was [26]*26illegal, the confession will be admissible if it is freely and voluntarily given. State v. Plath, 277 S. C. 126, 284 S. E. 2d 221 (1981). Since Lanier does not claim his confession was not voluntary, his argument that the confession was inadmissible is without merit.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-2.

The South Carolina Supreme Court declined further review.

Under well-established precedent, “the fact that [a] confession may be ‘voluntary’ for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, in the sense that Miranda warnings were given and understood, is not by itself sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal arrest. In this situation, a finding of ‘voluntariness’ for purposes of the Fifth Amendment is merely a threshold requirement for Fourth Amendment analysis.” Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U. S. 687, 690 (1982). See also Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 217-218 (1979); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 602 (1975). . The reasoning of the South Carolina Court of Appeals is inconsistent with those cases. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to that court for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery. He contends that his confession should have been suppressed because it was the product of an illegal arrest. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rejection of his motion to suppress the confession:

“Assuming, without deciding, that Lanier’s arrest was illegal, we nevertheless hold his confession was admissible. A confession made while the accused is in custody before any warrant for his arrest has been issued is not per se inadmissible. State v. Funchess, 255 S. C. 385, 179 S. E. 2d 25, cert. denied, 404 U. S. 915, 92 S. Ct. 236, 30 L. Ed. 2d 189 (1971). Voluntariness remains as the test of admissibility. Id. Even if the arrest was [26]*26illegal, the confession will be admissible if it is freely and voluntarily given. State v. Plath, 277 S. C. 126, 284 S. E. 2d 221 (1981). Since Lanier does not claim his confession was not voluntary, his argument that the confession was inadmissible is without merit.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-2.

The South Carolina Supreme Court declined further review.

Under well-established precedent, “the fact that [a] confession may be ‘voluntary’ for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, in the sense that Miranda warnings were given and understood, is not by itself sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal arrest. In this situation, a finding of ‘voluntariness’ for purposes of the Fifth Amendment is merely a threshold requirement for Fourth Amendment analysis.” Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U. S. 687, 690 (1982). See also Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 217-218 (1979); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 602 (1975). . The reasoning of the South Carolina Court of Appeals is inconsistent with those cases. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to that court for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

8 F.3d 30 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Abram v. State

606 So. 2d 1015 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1992)

People v. Green

535 N.E.2d 413 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1988)

McCarthy v. Bronson

683 F. Supp. 880 (D. Connecticut, 1988)

Rose v. State

742 S.W.2d 901 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 U.S. 25, 106 S. Ct. 297, 88 L. Ed. 2d 23, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 138, 54 U.S.L.W. 3303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanier-v-south-carolina-scotus-1985.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack