Officers heard a bicycle approaching on a darkened path that crossed a lot. They ordered the rider, Martinez (P), to dismount, spread his legs, and place his hands behind his head. P complied. They conducted a pat-down frisk and discovered a knife in P's waistband. An altercation ensued. The officers claim that P drew an officer’s gun from its holster and pointed it at them; P denies this. Both sides agree, however, that the officer yelled, ' 'He's got my gun!' ' Another Officer drew her gun and shot P several times, causing severe injuries that left P permanently blinded and paralyzed from the waist down. The officers then placed P under arrest. Chavez (D), a patrol supervisor, arrived on the scene minutes later with paramedics. D accompanied P to the hospital and then questioned P there while he was receiving treatment from medical personnel. The interview lasted a total of about 10 minutes, over a 45-minute period, with D leaving the emergency room for periods of time to permit medical personnel to attend to P. P admitted that he took the gun from the officer's holster and pointed it at the police. He also admitted that he used heroin regularly. At one point, P said 'I am not telling you anything until they treat me,' yet D continued the interview. At no point during the interview was P given Miranda warnings. P was never charged with a crime, and his answers were never used against him in any criminal prosecution. P filed suit under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, maintaining that D's actions violated his Fifth Amendment right not to be 'compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,' as well as his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to be free from coercive questioning. The District Court granted summary judgment to P as to D's qualified immunity defense on both the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims. D took an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's denial of qualified immunity. The Ninth Circuit first concluded that D's actions, as alleged by P, deprived P of his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. It held that 'a police officer violates the Fourteenth Amendment when he obtains a confession by coercive conduct, regardless of whether the confession is subsequently used at trial.'

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.