text:
    No. 1286,
    Misc.
    Daniel v. New York.

      Victor M. Earle III and Robert S. Rif kind for petitioner. Frank S. Hogan and Harold Roland Shapiro for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 1287,
    Misc.
    Morales v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1291,
    Misc.
    Williams v. Deegan, Warden.

      Leon B. Polsky and Gretchen White Oberman for petitioner.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1292,
    Misc.
    Bird v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1299,
    Misc.
    Tafoya v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1302,
    Misc.
    Tucker, aka Wheatley v. United States.

      Louis V. Mangrum for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Mervyn Hamburg for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1303,
    Mise.
    Schack v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1304,
    Mise.
    Harrison v. Coiner, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1306,
    Mise.
    Williams v. Nelson, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1307,
    Mise.
    Newsome v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1308,
    Mise.
    Schack v. Starr.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1324,
    Mise.
    Gosser v. New Jersey.

      Lawrence M. Perskie for petitioner. William J. Hughes and James A. O’Neill for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1330,
    Mise.
    Gray v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1340,
    Mise.
    Graves v. United States.

      Warren E. Magee for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1356,
    Misc.
    Robertson v. Rhode Island.

      Herbert F. DeSimone, Attorney General of Rhode Island, and Donald P. Ryan, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. R. I. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1382,
    Misc.
    Hacker v. City of New York et al.

      J. Lee Rankin and Stanley Buchsbaum for respondents.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 871.
    No. 937.
    No. 961.
    No. 962.
    No. 980.
    No. 1027.
    No. 672,
    No. 786,
    No. 879,
    No. 896,
    No. 1017,
    No. 1117,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Wiseman, Director of Internal Revenue for the District of Oklahoma v. Barby et ux., Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. et al., Hettleman et al. v. Chicago Law Institute et al., McManigal v. Simon et al., Electric Furnace Corp. v. Deering Milliken Research Corp., Hicks et al. v. Physical Therapists Examining Board for the District of Columbia, Williams v. United States, Walker v. Wainwright, Corrections Director, Harris v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent, Elksnis v. United States, Mancilla v. United States et al., Butterfield v. Gazelle,
   ante, p. 339;

ante, p. 979;

ante, p. 338;

ante, p. 980;

ante, p. 949;

ante, p.987;

ante, p. 960;

ante, p. 335;

ante, p. 963;

ante, p. 990;

ante, p. 982; and

ante, p. 985. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 237.
    No. 700.
    No. 968.
    No. 1033.
    Biggers v. Tennessee, Anderson v. Johnson, Warden, Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr et al., dba Farr, Whitlock & Co., et al., Powell v. National Savings & Trust Co.,
   ante, p. 404;

ante, p. 456;

ante, p. 956; and

ante, p. 957. Petitions for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


text:
    No. 906.
    Rovico, Inc. v. American Photocopy Equipment Co.,
   ante, p. 945. Motion for leave to supplement petition for rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    April 29, 1968.
    No. 1082,
    No. 1501,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Abbott v. Turner, Warden; and Armstrong v. Haskins, Correctional Superintendent.
   Motions for leave to file

petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied. Treating the papers submitted as petitions for writs of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1438,
    No. 1439,
    No. 1444,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Jeffries v. Frye, Warden; Patterson v. Lane, Warden; and White v. Noble, Warden, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 1232,
    No. 1255,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Davis v. Crouse, Warden; and Fernandez v. District Court of Puerto Rico, Bayamon Part, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 813.
    Shapiro, Commissioner of Welfare of the State of Connecticut v. Thompson.

      Lorna Lawhead Williams, Special Assistant Attorney General of Iowa, on the motion.
   Appeal from D. C. Conn. (Probable jurisdiction noted, 389 U. S. 1032.) Motion for permission for two attorneys for leave to participate in oral argument granted.


text:
    No. 1320,
    Misc.
    McDonald et al. v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago et al.

      Marshall Patner on the motion.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Further consideration of question of jurisdiction postponed to hearing of the case on the merits, and case transferred to appellate docket.


text:
    No. 1209.
    McCarthy v. United States.

      Barnabas F. Sears, Wayland B. Cedarquist and Maurice J. McCarthy for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin and Joseph M. Howard for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 1212.
    United States v. Augenblick et al.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Weisl, John C. Eldridge and Robert V. Zener for the United States. Joseph H. Sharlitt and Steven R. Rivkin for Augenblick and Francis J. Steiner, Jr., for Juhl, respondents.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 1185.
    Joffe v. Joffe.

      Eugene Cressman and F. Joseph Donohue for petitioner. J. Mortimer Ruhenstein for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1186.
    Joffe v. Joffe.

      Eugene Gressman and F. Joseph Donohue for petitioner. J. Mortimer Ruhenstein for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1214.
    Butler v. United States.

      Ralph Rudd for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Edward Fenig for the United States. Marvin M. Karpatkin, Melvin L. Wulf and Bernard A. Berkman for American Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1220.
    American Airlines, Inc. v. Egan et al., Administrators.

      John J. Martin and William M. Keegan for petitioner. Bernard Shatzkin and Burton S. Cooper for respondents.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1231.
    Hendrex v. United States.

      Sanford Rosenthal and George Stone for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1221.
    Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Kiser.

      Edward K. Wheeler and Eldon S. Olson for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1224.
    Preston v. Tyner.

      Robert R. Crane for petitioner.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Fay-ette County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1229.
    Ford v. Maryland.

      Robert C. Heeney for petitioner.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1232.
    Holbrook v. United States.

      Benjamin F. Kelly for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. May-sack for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1234.
    Ho Yeh Sze v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

      Abraham Lebenkoff and Jules E. Coven for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1240.
    Davidson v. Division of Revenue of the Department of Treasury of Michigan.

      Harold S. Sawyer for petitioner. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and William D. Dexter and Maurice Barbour, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1051.
    Soloner et al. v. Gartner.

      Henry Kaiser, Eugene Gressman, Edward Davis and Alan R. Howe for petitioners.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1274.
    Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. Wm. Spencer & Son Corp.

      Thomas V. McMahon for petitioner. Daniel A. Semel for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1082.
    Master Time Co., Ltd. v. DeJongh, Commissioner of the Department of Finance of the Virgin Islands.

      Warren H. Young for petitioner. Francisco Corneiro, Attorney General of the Virgin Islands, and Bruce MacGibbon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 1163.
    Virgo Corp. v. Paiewonsky, Governor of the Virgin Islands, et al.

      William Simon, John Bodner, Jr., and Gerald Radish for petitioner. Francisco Corneiro, Attorney General of the Virgin Islands, and Bruce MacGibbon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents Paiewonsky et al. John D. Conner, Ashley Sellers and George C. Davis for Antilles Industries, Inc., as amicus curiae, in support of the petition.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of Antilles Industries, Inc., for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that cer-tiorari should be granted. Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petition.


text:
    No. 1151,
    Misc.
    Gifford v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1216.
    Paul v. Dade County, Florida, et al.

      Alfred I. Hopkins for petitioner. Thomas C. Britton and St. Julien P. Rosemond for respondents.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


author: Mr. Justice Fortas,

text:
    No. 1176.
    Wilson v. Wiman, Reformatory Superintendent.

      John David Cole for petitioner. John B. Breckinridge, Attorney General of Kentucky, and Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Fortas,

with whom The Chief Justice

and Mr. Justice Douglas join, would grant certiorari in this case. In 1933 and 1935 petitioner was convicted in the state courts of Kentucky of housebreaking. In 1964, he was convicted of storehouse breaking. The earlier convictions were used in evidence pursuant to the Kentucky recidivist statute. Petitioner was sentenced to life in prison. The trial judge did not instruct the jury that the prior convictions could be used only for the limited purpose of the recidivist statute. I believe that we should hear this case to determine whether it is governed by Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554 (1967), and if so whether Spencer v. Texas should be reconsidered. See the separate opinion of The Chief Justice, in which I joined, 385 U. S., at 569, and the dissent of Mr. Justice Brennan, in which Mr. Justice Douglas joined, 385 U. S., at 587.


text:
    No. 1189.
    Krisel v. Duran et al.

      Maurice M. Krisel, pro se, and Benjamin M. Cardozo, Michael H. Cardozo IV and Roman Beck for petitioner. Jose C. Aponte, Attorney General of Puerto Rico, William D. Rogers and Robert A. Bicks for respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 1260,
    Misc.
    Howard v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1253.
    Kramm v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board of California et al.

      Charles K. Hackler for petitioner. Everett A. Corten for respondent Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board of California, and Sidney A. Stutz for respondent Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 553,
    Misc.
    Garay v. California.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Edsel W. Haws and Craig G. McIntosh, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 746,
    Misc.
    Collier v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Edward Fenig for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1195,
    Misc.
    Morris v. Coiner, Warden.

      George A. Daugherty for petitioner.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1264,
    Mise.
    Jones v. United States.

      Milton A. Kallis for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Edward Fenig for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1290,
    Mise.
    Mattio v. United States.

      Eugene P. Souther for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1243,
    Misc.
    Stanley v. Avery, Corrections Commissioner.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1254,
    Misc.
    Bryan v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1257,
    Misc.
    Robinson v. Virginia.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1279,
    Misc.
    Mintzer v. Dros, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1298,
    Mise.
    Denman v. Beale et al.

      Jesse R. Fillman for respondent Whitney.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1300,
    Misc.
    Ruark v. Colorado.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1310,
    Misc.
    Schlette v. California Adult Authority et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1312,
    Misc.
    Heirens v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1315,
    Misc.
    Pacholsky v. Pate, Warden.
   Cir. Ct., Will County, Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1345,
    Misc.
    Gullett et al. v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Edward Fenig for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1322,
    Misc.
    Bartlam v. New York.

      Laurence Lefj for respondent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1359,
    Misc.
    Holland v. Ciccone, Director, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Mervyn Hamburg for respondent.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1360,
    Misc.
    Williams v. Nelson, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1370,
    Misc.
    McEachen v. United States.

      Michael M. Kearney for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. May sack for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1376,
    Mise.
    Herrington v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1388,
    Misc.
    Brown v. Fogel.

      William M. Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy and Morton Stavis for petitioner.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1219,
    Misc.
    Wilkerson v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1405,
    Misc.
    Gallegos et al. v. Turner, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1389,
    Misc.
    Perez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1448,
    Misc.
    Carpenter v. Crouse, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1261,
    Misc.
    Magruder v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney GeneralVinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Edward Fenig for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1095.
    No. 855,
    No. 1069,
    No. 1238,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Gannon v. Navarro, Bennett v. Myers, Correctional Superintendent, Weiland v. O'Neal, Sargent v. Yeager, Warden, et al.,
   ante, p. 989;

ante, p. 973;

ante, p. 984; and

ante, p. 994. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 324.
    Norfolk & Western Railway Co. et al. v. Missouri State Tax Commission et al.,
   ante, p. 317. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 1121.
    Peto v. Madison Square Garden Corp. et al.,
   ante, p. 989. Petition for rehearing and other relief denied.


text:
    No, 1096,
    Misc.
    Shyvers v. United States,
   ante, p. 998. Petition for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


author: Me. Justice Black Mr. Justice White,

text:
    MATHIS v. UNITED STATES.
    No. 726.
    Argued April 2-3, 1968.
    Decided May 6, 1968.

      Nicholas J. Capuano, by appointment of the Court, 389 U. S. 966, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

      Daniel M. Friedman argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, and Joseph M. Howard.

   Me. Justice Black

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in a United States District Court on two counts charging that he knowingly filed false claims against the Government in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 287 and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. The frauds charged were claims for tax refunds growing out of petitioner’s individual income taxes for 1960 and 1961. Both income tax returns for these two years asserted receipts of income from two different companies which the government agents were unable to locate and which evidence offered tended to show were nonexistent. The amount of income claimed in each tax return was calculated in such a way as to show that these two nonexistent employers had withheld taxes sufficient to justify substantial refunds to petitioner. The Government paid the 1960 tax refund to petitioner of $885.60 as claimed, but the record fails to show whether the 19.61 claimed refund was paid. A part of the evidence on which the conviction rested consisted of documents and oral statements obtained from petitioner by a government agent while petitioner was in prison serving a state sentence. Before eliciting this information, the government agent did not not warn petitioner that any evidence he gave the Government could be used against him, and that he had a right to remain silent if he desired as well as a right to the presence of counsel and that if he was unable to afford counsel one would be appointed for him. At trial petitioner sought several times without success to have the judge hold hearings out of the presence of the jury to prove that his statements to the revenue agent were given without these warnings and should therefore not be used as evidence against him. For this contention he relied exclusively on our case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). The District Court rejected this contention as did the Court of Appeals in affirming. 376 F. 2d 695. We granted certiorari to decide whether the Miranda case calls for reversal. We hold that it does.

There can be no doubt that the documents and oral statements given by petitioner to the government agent and used against him were strongly incriminating. In the Miranda case this Court’s opinion stated at some length the constitutional reasons why one in custody who is interrogated by officers about matters that might tend to incriminate him is entitled to be warned “that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” 384 U. S., at 479. The Government here seeks to escape application of the Miranda warnings on two arguments: (1) that these questions were asked as a part of a routine tax investigation where no criminal proceedings might even be brought, and (2) that the petitioner had not been put in jail by the officers questioning him, but was there for an entirely separate offense. These differences are too minor and shadowy to justify a departure from the well-considered conclusions of Miranda with reference to warnings to be given to a person held in custody.

It is true that a “routine tax investigation” may be initiated for the purpose of a civil action rather than criminal prosecution. To this extent tax investigations differ from investigations of murder, robbery, and other crimes. But tax investigations frequently lead to criminal prosecutions, just as the one here did. In fact, the last visit of the revenue agent to the jail to question petitioner took place only eight days before the full-fledged criminal investigation concededly began. And, as the investigating revenue agent was compelled to admit, there was always the possibility during his investigation that his work would end up in a criminal prosecution. We reject the contention that tax investigations are immune from the Miranda requirements for warnings to be given a person in custody.

The Government also seeks to narrow the scope of the Miranda holding by making it applicable only to questioning one who is “in custody” in connection with the very case under investigation. There is no substance to such a distinction, and in effect it goes against the whole purpose of the Miranda decision which was designed to give meaningful protection to Fifth Amendment rights. We find nothing in the Miranda opinion which calls for a curtailment of the warnings to be given persons under interrogation by officers based on the reason why the person is in custody. In speaking of “custody” the language of the Miranda opinion is clear and unequivocal:

“To summarize, we hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized.” 384 U. S., at 478.

And the opinion goes on to say that the person so held must be given the warnings about his right to be silent and his right to have a lawyer.

Thus, the courts below were wrong in permitting the introduction of petitioner’s self-incriminating evidence given without warning of his right to be silent and right to counsel. The cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Mr. Justice White,

with whom Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart join,

dissenting.

I dissented from the Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), because I thought that the Court had accepted an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment having “no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment,” 384 U. S., at 526, and because I disagreed with the Court’s “assessment of the [new] rule’s consequences measured against community values,” 384 U. S., at 537. I continue to believe that the decision in Miranda was an extravagant and unwise interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, and I would prefer that Miranda be abandoned, thus avoiding the reversal of this criminal conviction because of introduction at trial of statements by the petitioner that were unquestionably voluntary by traditional standards but were made without the petitioner’s having received the so-called Miranda warnings.

However, even were I to agree that Miranda was correctly decided, I would not join the unexplained extension which the Court gives Miranda in this case. At issue are two questions asked of petitioner by an Internal Revenue agent in the course of- a civil investigation. The interview was indistinguishable from the thousands of inquiries into tax liability made annually as a necessary adjunct to operation of our tax system. The Court said in Miranda that “proper safeguards” were needed for “in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime,” 384 U. S., at 467. In this case the majority states that criminal investigation of Mathis began soon after the second of the visits to him of Revenue Agent Lawless. This suggests a view, unsupported by the record before us, that the civil investigation had raised suspicions of criminal conduct by Mathis at the time of this visit. However, the majority also says that “tax investigations frequently lead to criminal prosecutions,” a hint that any in-custody questioning by an employee of the Government must be preceded by warnings if it is within the immensely broad area of investigations which “frequently lead” to criminal inquiries. Fortunately, voluntary compliance with civil regulation is widespread in this country. Nevertheless, compliance must be supplemented and encouraged by constant and widespread investigations, during which questions are asked and data are requested by employees of the Government whose goal is only to settle fairly the civil accounts between the United States and its citizens. Sometimes, of course, the possibility of a criminal violation is discovered through such inquiries. I had not thought that Miranda extended its checklist of warnings to these civil investigations. Certainly the explanation of the need for warnings given in the Miranda opinion does not cover civil investigations, and the Court’s opinion in this case furnishes no additional support.

The Court is equally cavalier in concluding that petitioner was “in custody” in the sense in which that phrase was used in Miranda. The State of Florida was confining petitioner at the time he answered Agent Lawless’ questions. But Miranda rested not on the mere fact of physical restriction but on a conclusion that coercion— pressure to answer questions — usually flows from a certain type of custody, police station interrogation of someone charged with or suspected of a crime. Although petitioner was confined, he was at the time of interrogation in familiar surroundings. Neither the record nor the Court suggests reasons why petitioner was “coerced” into answering Lawless’ questions any more than is the citizen interviewed at home by a revenue agent or interviewed in a Revenue Service office to which citizens are requested to come for interviews. The rationale of Miranda has no relevance to inquiries conducted outside the allegedly hostile and forbidding atmosphere surrounding police station interrogation of a criminal suspect. The Court’s willingness to reverse without explaining why the reasons given for the Miranda decision have any relevance to the facts of this case is deeply troubling.

       18 U. S. C. § 287 provides: “Whoever makes or presents to any person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, or to any department or agency thereof, any claim upon or against the United States, or any department or agency thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

       Internal Revenue Agent Lawless testified that on October 30, 1964, he interviewed petitioner in the Florida State Penitentiary to determine if the 1960 return had been prepared by petitioner and to obtain petitioner’s consent in writing to extend the statute of limitations on the 1960 return. At this interview petitioner identified the 1960 tax return and the signature thereon as his; he also signed the extension form. Again on March 2, 1965, Agent Lawless interviewed petitioner at the penitentiary, and this time petitioner identified the 1961 tax return and signature thereon as his and signed an extension form for this return.

       Petitioner was asked whether tax returns received by the Government bearing his name had in fact been prepared by him and whether he would consent to an extension of the statute of limitations for causes of action arising from those returns.

       A civil investigator is required, whenever and as soon as he finds “definite indications of fraud or criminal potential,” to refer a case to the Intelligence Division for investigation by a different agent who works regularly on criminal matters. In the case before us, such a reference was made eight days after the second visit to petitioner by Agent Lawless. The criminal agent visited petitioner, gave him the full set of “Miranda warnings,” and was told petitioner did not wish to discuss the case with him. No further questions were asked.