Chavez v. Martinez case is one of the major lawsuits in the history of the United States that addressed the potential civil liability for coercive interrogations. In this lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court more clearly recognized the constitutional issue that confirmed that coercive interrogation may violate the right of a suspect to substantive due process in certain conditions. This violation is likely to occur even when no self-incriminating statement is used against the suspect under interrogation (Manak, p.1). Nonetheless, the violation will be identified only when particular alleged conduct develops to a level of coercive interrogation that surprises the conscience. Consequently, the ruling in Chavez v. Martinez case has had significant impacts on the interview and/or interrogation process by police officers. Background to the Case:

Martinez filed a lawsuit against law enforcement officers after being shot during a struggle or altercation with these officers. While undergoing treatment for the gunshot wounds received during the struggle, Martinez was interrogated by petitioner Chavez who was a patrol supervisor. The incident that led to altercation with police officers occurred when Martinez was riding his bicycle from work and stopped by officers carrying out investigations regarding narcotics violations. A struggle between the two parties ensued after the police attempted to handcuff Martinez, during which he was shot. The gunshot wound in turn resulted in Martinez's permanent paralysis and loss of vision ("Chavez v. Martinez" par, 1).

Martinez later sued these officers on grounds that the search and use of deadly weapons during the investigation...

During the trial, the officers introduce evidence of a taped confession that was obtained while he was in hospital. The confession occurred when Martinez was interrogated by petitioner Chavez while receiving treatment for the gunshot wounds from the altercation. However, Martinez was never given a Miranda during the interrogation though he admitted of using heroin and grabbing an officer's gun during the incident. As a result, Martinez filed a lawsuit in which he argued that the tape evidence could not be used against him because he was never given a Miranda at any point. His arguments were approved by both the trial and appellate courts, which forced the officers to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The main constitutional issue in the appeal was whether the right to liberty from coercive interrogation based on the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments is infringed when individual's statements are used in an issue rather than a criminal case.
Decisions at Trial Court, Appellate Court, and U.S. Supreme Court:

The trial court held that Martinez claims that the tape confession could not be used as evidence against him was right since he was not given a Miranda at any point in the interview and/or interrogation by petitioner Chavez. Moreover, Martinez was never charged with a crime whereas his answers were never used against him in any criminal case. In the trial court, Martinez argued that the petitioner's actions infringed his Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself in any criminal case. He further stated that the petitioner's actions violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive…