Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Routine booking question exception
Leading case
Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990)
How courts have described it
recognizing “routine booking question exception which exempts from Miranda’s coverage questions to secure the biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services” (internal quotation marks omitted)
Acosta v. Artuz, 575 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2009)
recognizing a “routine booking question exception” that “exempts from Miranda’s coverage questions to secure the biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services” (internal quotations omitted)
Dickerson v. Victoria County Sheriff's Office (S.D. Tex. 2022)
holding that questions “to secure biographical data necessary to complete booking” — such as the suspect's name, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and current age — "fall outside the protections of Miranda ”
United States v. Willock, 682 F. Supp. 2d 512 (D. Md. 2010)
finding that Miranda warnings need not be given when questioning a person incident to the booking process at the police station
N.C. v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. 2013)
concluding that questions seeking biographical information — such as date of birth — at the time of booking fall outside the protections of Miranda and the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment
People ex rel. J.G., 59 V.I. 347 (2013)
Related doctrines
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.