Skip to main content
Workforce LibreTexts

18.3: Kirby v. Illinois

  1. Last updated
  2. Save as PDF
  • Page ID
    16275

    • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    PETITIONER                                                                                 RESPONDENT

    Thomas Kirby                                                                             Illinois

    LOCATION 

    Maxwell Street Police Station 

    DOCKET NO.                                                                                 DECIDED BY 

    70-5061                                                                                     Burger Court 

    LOWER COURT

    State appellate court

    CITATION

    406 US 682 (1972)

    ARGUED

    Nov 11, 1971

    REARGUED

    Mar 19 – 20, 1972

    DECIDED

    Jun 7, 1972

    GRANTED

    May 24, 1971

    ADVOCATES

    Michael P. Seng for petitioner

    James B. Zagel for respondent

    Jerold S. Solovy for petitioner on reargument

    Facts of the case

    William Shard reported to the Chicago police that two men stole his wallet. The wallet contained traveler’schecksand his social security card, among other things. The next day, two police officers stopped Thomas Kirby and his friend, Ralph Bean. When asked for identification, Kirby produced Shard’s wallet. The officers arrested Kirby and Bean and brought them to the Maxwell Street Police Station. Once there, the officers learned about Shard’s robbery and sent a car to pick up Shard and bring him to the station. Without an attorney present, police asked Shard if Kirby and Bean were his robbers. Shard instantly gave a positive identification. Kirby and Bean were not indicted until almost 6 weeks later. At trial, Kirby unsuccessfully attempted to suppress Shard’s identification. The jury found Kirby guilty and the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District affirmed.

    Question

    Does due process require that an accused be advised of his right to counsel before an identification that takes place before the accused has been charged formally?

    Conclusion

    5–4 Decision

    Plurality Opinion by Potter Stewart

    FOR AGAINST

    Stewart

    Powell

    Blackmun

    Burger

    Rehnquist

    Douglas

    Brennan

    Marshall

    White

    No. Justice Potter Stewart, writing for a four justice plurality, delivered the judgment of the court. The plurality expressed that there is no constitutional right to counsel for an identification that takes place before the accused is indicted or formally charged. For this reason, the Exclusionary Rule does not apply, and the identification can be admitted at trial. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger concurred, emphasizing that the right to counsel does not attach until an accused is formally charged. Justice Lewis F. Powell concurred in the judgment, agreeing that the Exclusionary Rule does not apply.

    Justice William J. Brennan dissented, arguing that prior Supreme Court Exclusionary Rule precedent just happened to cover post-indictment identifications, but the reasons for using the Rule are the same in preindictment cases. Justice William O. Douglas and Justice Thurgood Marshall joined in the dissent. Justice Byron R. White dissented, arguing that the Exclusionary Rule applies in this case.

    Contributors and Attributions

    This page titled 18.3: Kirby v. Illinois is shared under a CC BY 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Larry Alvarez via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available upon request.