Chavez v. Martinez

Justice THOMAS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion. THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins this opinion in its entirety. Justice O'CONNOR joins Parts I and II-A of this opinion. Justice SCALIA joins Parts I and II of this opinion.

This case involves a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit arising out of petitioner Ben Chavez's allegedly coercive interrogation of respondent Oliverio Martinez. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Chavez was not entitled to a defense of qualified immunity because he violated Martinez's clearly established constitutional rights. We conclude that Chavez did not deprive Martinez of a constitutional right.

I

On November 28, 1997, police officers Maria Peã and Andrew Salinas were near a vacant lot in a residential area of Oxnard, California, investigating suspected narcotics activity. While Peã and Salinas were questioning an individual, they heard a bicycle approaching on a darkened path that crossed the lot. They ordered the rider, respondent Martinez, to dismount, spread his legs, and place his hands behind his head. Martinez complied. Salinas then conducted a patdown frisk and discovered a knife in Martinez's waistband. An altercation ensued.

There is some dispute about what occurred during the altercation. The officers claim that Martinez drew Salinas' gun from its holster and pointed it at them; Martinez denies this. Both sides agree, however, that Salinas yelled, “ ‘He's got my gun!’ ” . . . Peã then drew her gun and shot Martinez several times, causing severe injuries that left Martinez permanently blinded and paralyzed from the waist down. The officers then placed Martinez under arrest.

Petitioner Chavez, a patrol supervisor, arrived on the scene minutes later with paramedics. Chavez accompanied Martinez to the hospital and then questioned Martinez there while he was receiving treatment from medical personnel. The interview lasted a total of about 10 minutes, over a 45-minute period, with Chavez leaving the emergency room for periods of time to permit medical personnel to attend to Martinez.

At first, most of Martinez's answers consisted of “I don't know,” “I am dying,” and “I am choking.” . . . Later in the interview, Martinez 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, Martinez said “I am not telling you anything until they treat me,” yet Chavez continued the interview. . . . At no point during the interview was Martinez given warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, . . .

Martinez was never charged with a crime, and his answers were never used against him in any criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, Martinez filed suit under Rev. Stat. § 1979, . . . maintaining that Chavez'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 Martinez as to Chavez's qualified immunity defense on both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. Chavez took an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's denial of qualified immunity. . . . Applying Saucier v. Katz, . . . the Ninth Circuit first concluded that Chavez's actions, as alleged by Martinez, deprived Martinez of his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Ninth Circuit did not attempt to explain how Martinez had been “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Instead, the Ninth Circuit reiterated the holding of an earlier Ninth Circuit case, Cooper v. Dupnik, . . . that “the Fifth Amendment's purpose is to prevent coercive interrogation practices that are destructive of human dignity,” . . . and found that Chavez's “coercive questioning” of Martinez violated his Fifth Amendment rights, “[e]ven though Martinez's statements were not used against him in a criminal proceeding,” . . . As to Martinez's due process claim, the Ninth Circuit 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.” . . .

The Ninth Circuit then concluded that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights asserted by Martinez were clearly established by federal law, explaining that a reasonable officer “would have known that persistent interrogation of the suspect despite repeated requests to stop violated the suspect's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from coercive interrogation.” . . .

[. . .]

II

In deciding whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we must first determine whether the officer's alleged conduct violated a constitutional right. . . . If not, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity, and we need not consider whether the asserted right was “clearly established.” We conclude that Martinez's allegations fail to state a violation of his constitutional rights.

A

1

The Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, . . . requires that “[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” . . . We fail to see how, based on the text of the Fifth Amendment, Martinez can allege a violation of this right, since Martinez was never prosecuted for a crime, let alone compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case.

Although Martinez contends that the meaning of “criminal case” should encompass the entire criminal investigatory process, including police interrogations, . . . we disagree. In our view, a “criminal case” at the very least requires the initiation of legal proceedings. . . . We need not decide today the precise moment when a “criminal case” commences; it is enough to say that police questioning does not constitute a “case” any more than a private investigator's precomplaint activities constitute a “civil case.” Statements compelled by police interrogations of course may not be used against a defendant at trial, . . . but it is not until their use in a criminal case that a violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause occurs, . . .

Here, Martinez was never made to be a “witness” against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause because his statements were never admitted as testimony against him in a criminal case. Nor was he ever placed under oath and exposed to “ ‘the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt.’ ” . . . The text of the Self-Incrimination Clause simply cannot support the Ninth Circuit's view that the mere use of compulsive questioning, without more, violates the Constitution.

2

Nor can the Ninth Circuit's approach be reconciled with our case law. It is well established that the government may compel witnesses to testify at trial or before a grand jury, on pain of contempt, so long as the witness is not the target of the criminal case in which he testifies. . . . Even for persons who have a legitimate fear that their statements may subject them to criminal prosecution, we have long permitted the compulsion of incriminating testimony so long as those statements (or evidence derived from those statements) cannot be used against the speaker in any criminal case. . . . We have also recognized that governments may penalize public employees and government contractors (with the loss of their jobs or government contracts) to induce them to respond to inquiries, so long as the answers elicited (and their fruits) are immunized from use in any criminal case against the speaker. . . . By contrast, no “penalty” may ever be imposed on someone who exercises his core Fifth Amendment right not to be a “witness” against himself in a “criminal case.” . . . Our holdings in these cases demonstrate that, contrary to the Ninth Circuit's view, mere coercion does not violate the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause absent use of the compelled statements in a criminal case against the witness.

We fail to see how Martinez was any more “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” than an immunized witness forced to testify on pain of contempt. One difference, perhaps, is that the immunized witness knows that his statements will not, and may not, be used against him, whereas Martinez likely did not. But this does not make the statements of the immunized witness any less “compelled” and lends no support to the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that coercive police interrogations, absent the use of the involuntary statements in a criminal case, violate the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause. Moreover, our cases provide that those subjected to coercive police interrogations have an automatic protection from the use of their involuntary statements (or evidence derived from their statements) in any subsequent criminal trial. . . . This protection is, in fact, coextensive with the use and derivative use immunity mandated by Kastigar when the government compels testimony from a reluctant witness. . . . Accordingly, the fact that Martinez did not know his statements could not be used against him does not change our view that no violation of the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause occurred here.

3

Although our cases have permitted the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination privilege to be asserted in noncriminal cases, . . . that does not alter our conclusion that a violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination occurs only if one has been compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case.

In the Fifth Amendment context, we have created prophylactic rules designed to safeguard the core constitutional right protected by the Self-Incrimination Clause. . . . Among these rules is an evidentiary privilege that protects witnesses from being forced to give incriminating testimony, even in noncriminal cases, unless that testimony has been immunized from use and derivative use in a future criminal proceeding before it is compelled. . . .

By allowing a witness to insist on an immunity agreement before being compelled to give incriminating testimony in a noncriminal case, the privilege preserves the core Fifth Amendment right from invasion by the use of that compelled testimony in a subsequent criminal case. . . . Because the failure to assert the privilege will often forfeit the right to exclude the evidence in a subsequent “criminal case,” . . . it is necessary to allow assertion of the privilege prior to the commencement of a “criminal case” to safeguard the core Fifth Amendment trial right. If the privilege could not be asserted in such situations, testimony given in those judicial proceedings would be deemed “voluntary,” . . . hence, insistence on a prior grant of immunity is essential to memorialize the fact that the testimony had indeed been compelled and therefore protected from use against the speaker in any “criminal case.”

Rules designed to safeguard a constitutional right, however, do not extend the scope of the constitutional right itself, just as violations of judicially crafted prophylactic rules do not violate the constitutional rights of any person. As we explained, we have allowed the Fifth Amendment privilege to be asserted by witnesses in noncriminal cases in order to safeguard the core constitutional right defined by the Self-Incrimination Clause-the right not to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself. We have likewise established the Miranda exclusionary rule as a prophylactic measure to prevent violations of the right protected by the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause-the admission into evidence in a criminal case of confessions obtained through coercive custodial questioning. . . . And the absence of a “criminal case” in which Martinez was compelled to be a “witness” against himself defeats his core Fifth Amendment claim. The Ninth Circuit's view that mere compulsion violates the Self-Incrimination Clause, . . . finds no support in the text of the Fifth Amendment and is irreconcilable with our case law. Because we find that Chavez's alleged conduct did not violate the Self-Incrimination Clause, we reverse the Ninth Circuit's denial of qualified immunity as to Martinez's Fifth Amendment claim.

Our views on the proper scope of the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause do not mean that police torture or other abuse that results in a confession is constitutionally permissible so long as the statements are not used at trial; it simply means that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, rather than the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause, would govern the inquiry in those cases and provide relief in appropriate circumstances.

B

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Convictions based on evidence obtained by methods that are “so brutal and so offensive to human dignity” that they “shoc[k] the conscience” violate the Due Process Clause. . . Although Rochin did not establish a civil remedy for abusive police behavior, we recognized in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, . . . that deprivations of liberty caused by “the most egregious official conduct,” . . . may violate the Due Process Clause. While we rejected, in Lewis, a § 1983 plaintiff's contention that a police officer's deliberate indifference during a high-speed chase that caused the death of a motorcyclist violated due process, . . . we left open the possibility that unauthorized police behavior in other contexts might “shock the conscience” and give rise to § 1983 liability. . . .

We are satisfied that Chavez's questioning did not violate Martinez's due process rights. Even assuming, arguendo, that the persistent questioning of Martinez somehow deprived him of a liberty interest, we cannot agree with Martinez's characterization of Chavez's behavior as “egregious” or “conscience shocking.” As we noted in Lewis, the official conduct “most likely to rise to the conscience-shocking level” is the “conduct intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest.” . . . Here, there is no evidence that Chavez acted with a purpose to harm Martinez by intentionally interfering with his medical treatment. Medical personnel were able to treat Martinez throughout the interview, . . . and Chavez ceased his questioning to allow tests and other procedures to be performed. . . . Nor is there evidence that Chavez's conduct exacerbated Martinez's injuries or prolonged his stay in the hospital. Moreover, the need to investigate whether there had been police misconduct constituted a justifiable government interest given the risk that key evidence would have been lost if Martinez had died without the authorities ever hearing his side of the story.

The Court has held that the Due Process Clause also protects certain “fundamental liberty interest[s]” from deprivation by the government, regardless of the procedures provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. . . . Only fundamental rights and liberties which are “ ‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition’ ” and “ ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ ” qualify for such protection. Many times, however, we have expressed our reluctance to expand the doctrine of substantive due process, . . . in large part “because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended,” . . .

Glucksberg requires a “ ‘careful description’ ” of the asserted fundamental liberty interest for the purposes of substantive due process analysis; vague generalities, such as “the right not to be talked to,” will not suffice. . . . We therefore must take into account the fact that Martinez was hospitalized and in severe pain during the interview, but also that Martinez was a critical nonpolice witness to an altercation resulting in a shooting by a police officer, and that the situation was urgent given the perceived risk that Martinez might die and crucial evidence might be lost. In these circumstances, we can find no basis in our prior jurisprudence, . . . or in our Nation's history and traditions to suppose that freedom from unwanted police questioning is a right so fundamental that it cannot be abridged absent a “compelling state interest.” . . . We have never required such a justification for a police interrogation, and we decline to do so here. The lack of any “guideposts for responsible decisionmaking” in this area, and our oft-stated reluctance to expand the doctrine of substantive due process, further counsel against recognizing a new “fundamental liberty interest” in this case.

We conclude that Martinez has failed to allege a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it is therefore unnecessary to inquire whether the right asserted by Martinez was clearly established.

III

Because Chavez did not violate Martinez's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, he was entitled to qualified immunity. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Justice SOUTER delivered an opinion, Part II of which is the opinion of the Court and Part I of which is an opinion concurring in the judgment.

I

Respondent Martinez's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his privilege against compelled self-incrimination should be rejected and his case remanded for further proceedings. . . . Martinez claims more than evidentiary protection in asking this Court to hold that the questioning alone was a completed violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments subject to redress by an action for damages under § 1983.

To recognize such a constitutional cause of action for compensation would, of course, be well outside the core of Fifth Amendment protection, but that alone is not a sufficient reason to reject Martinez's claim. As Justice Harlan explained in his dissent in Miranda v. Arizona, . . . “extension[s]” of the bare guarantee may be warranted, . . . if clearly shown to be desirable means to protect the basic right against the invasive pressures of contemporary society,. . . In this light, we can make sense of a variety of Fifth Amendment holdings: barring compulsion to give testimonial evidence in a civil proceeding, . . . requiring a grant of immunity in advance of any testimonial proffer, . . . precluding threats or impositions of penalties that would undermine the right to immunity, . . . and conditioning admissibility on warnings and waivers to promote intelligent choices and to simplify subsequent inquiry into voluntariness, see Miranda, supra. All of this law is outside the Fifth Amendment's core, with each case expressing a judgment that the core guarantee, or the judicial capacity to protect it, would be placed at some risk in the absence of such complementary protection.

I do not, however, believe that Martinez can make the “powerful showing,” subject to a realistic assessment of costs and risks, necessary to expand protection of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination to the point of the civil liability he asks us to recognize here. . .. The most obvious drawback inherent in Martinez's purely Fifth Amendment claim to damages is its risk of global application in every instance of interrogation producing a statement inadmissible under Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment principles, or violating one of the complementary rules we have accepted in aid of the privilege against evidentiary use. If obtaining Martinez's statement is to be treated as a stand-alone violation of the privilege subject to compensation, why should the same not be true whenever the police obtain any involuntary self-incriminating statement, or whenever the government so much as threatens a penalty in derogation of the right to immunity, or whenever the police fail to honor Miranda? Martinez offers no limiting principle or reason to foresee a stopping place short of liability in all such cases.

Recognizing an action for damages in every such instance not only would revolutionize Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment law, but would beg the question that must inform every extension or recognition of a complementary rule in service of the core privilege: why is this new rule necessary in aid of the basic guarantee? Martinez has offered no reason to believe that the guarantee has been ineffective in all or many of those circumstances in which its vindication has depended on excluding testimonial admissions or barring penalties. And I have no reason to believe the law has been systemically defective in this respect.

But if there is no failure of efficacy infecting the existing body of Fifth Amendment law, any argument for a damages remedy in this case must depend not on its Fifth Amendment feature but upon the particular charge of outrageous conduct by the police, extending from their initial encounter with Martinez through the questioning by Chavez. That claim, however, if it is to be recognized as a constitutional one that may be raised in an action under § 1983, must sound in substantive due process. . . . Here, it is enough to say that Justice STEVENS shows that Martinez has a serious argument in support of such a position.

II

Whether Martinez may pursue a claim of liability for a substantive due process violation is thus an issue that should be addressed on remand, along with the scope and merits of any such action that may be found open to him.

The concurring opinion of Justice SCALIA is omitted.

Justice STEVENS, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

As a matter of fact, the interrogation of respondent was the functional equivalent of an attempt to obtain an involuntary confession from a prisoner by torturous methods. As a matter of law, that type of brutal police conduct constitutes an immediate deprivation of the prisoner's constitutionally protected interest in liberty. Because these propositions are so clear, the District Court and the Court of Appeals correctly held that petitioner is not entitled to qualified immunity.

I

What follows is an English translation of portions of the tape-recorded questioning in Spanish that occurred in the emergency room of the hospital when, as is evident from the text, both parties believed that respondent was about to die:

“Chavez: What happened? Olivero, tell me what happened.

“O[liverio] M[artinez]: I don't know.

“Chavez: I don't know what happened (sic)?

“O. M.: Ay! I am dying. Ay! What are you doing to me?

“No, ... ! (unintelligible scream).

“Chavez: What happened, sir?

“O. M.: My foot hurts ...

“Chavez: Olivera. Sir, what happened?

“O. M.: I am choking.

“Chavez: Tell me what happened.

“O. M.: I don't know.

“Chavez: ‘I don't know.’

“O. M.: My leg hurts.

“Chavez: I don't know what happened (sic)?

“O. M.: It hurts ...

“Chavez: Hey, hey look.

“O. M.: I am choking.

“Chavez: Can you hear? look listen, I am Benjamin Chavez with the police here in Oxnard, look.

“O. M.: I am dying, please.

“Chavez: OK, yes, tell me what happened. If you are going to die, tell me what happened. Look I need to tell (sic) what happened.

“O. M.: I don't know.

“Chavez: You don't know, I don't know what happened (sic)? Did you talk to the police?

“O. M.: Yes.

“Chavez: What happened with the police?

“O. M.: We fought.

“Chavez: Huh? What happened with the police?

“O. M.: The police shot me.

“Chavez: Why?

“O. M.: Because I was fighting with him.

“Chavez: Oh, why were you fighting with the police?

“O. M.: I am dying ...

“Chavez: OK, yes you are dying, but tell me why you are fighting, were you fighting with the police?

.....

“O. M.: Doctor, please I want air, I am dying.

“Chavez: OK, OK. I want to know if you pointed the gun [to yourself] at the police.

“O. M.: Yes.

“Chavez: Yes, and you pointed it [to yourself]? (sic) at the police pointed the gun? (sic) Huh?

“O. M.: I am dying, please ...

.....

“Chavez: OK, listen, listen I want to know what happened, ok?

“O. M.: I want them to treat me.

“Chavez: OK, they are do it (sic), look when you took out the gun from the tape (sic) of the police ...

“O. M.: I am dying ...

“Chavez: Ok, look, what I want to know if you took out (sic) the gun of the police?

“O. M.: I am not telling you anything until they treat me.

“Chavez: Look, tell me what happened, I want to know, look well don't you want the police know (sic) what happened with you?

“O. M.: Uuuggghhh! my belly hurts ...

.....

“Chavez: Nothing, why did you run (sic) from the police?

“O. M.: I don't want to say anything anymore.

“Chavez: No?

“O. M.: I want them to treat me, it hurts a lot, please.

“Chavez: You don't want to tell (sic) what happened with you over there?

“O. M.: I don't want to die, I don't want to die.

“Chavez: Well if you are going to die tell me what happened, and right now you think you are going to die?

“O. M.: No.

“Chavez: No, do you think you are going to die?

“O. M.: Aren't you going to treat me or what?

“Chavez: Look, think you are going to die, (sic) that's all I want to know, if you think you are going to die? Right now, do you think you are going to die?

“O. M.: My belly hurts, please treat me.

“Chavez: Sir?

“O. M.: If you treat me I tell you everything, if not, no.

“Chavez: Sir, I want to know if you think you are going to die right now?

“O. M.: I think so.

“Chavez: You think (sic) so? Ok. Look, the doctors are going to help you with all they can do, Ok?. That they can do.

“O. M.: Get moving, I am dying, can't you see me? come on.

“Chavez: Ah, huh, right now they are giving you medication.” .. .

The sound recording of this interrogation, which has been lodged with the Court, vividly demonstrates that respondent was suffering severe pain and mental anguish throughout petitioner's persistent questioning.

[. . . ]

Justice KENNEDY, with whom Justice STEVENS joins, and with whom Justice GINSBURG joins as to Parts II and III, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

A single police interrogation now presents us with two issues: first, whether failure to give a required warning under Miranda v. Arizona, . .. was itself a completed constitutional violation actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and second, whether an actionable violation arose at once under the Self-Incrimination Clause (applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment) when the police, after failing to warn, used severe compulsion or extraordinary pressure in an attempt to elicit a statement or confession.

[. . .]

In my view the Self-Incrimination Clause is applicable at the time and place police use compulsion to extract a statement from a suspect. The Clause forbids that conduct. A majority of the Court has now concluded otherwise, but that should not end this case. It simply implicates the larger definition of liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . Turning to this essential, but less specific, guarantee, it seems to me a simple enough matter to say that use of torture or its equivalent in an attempt to induce a statement violates an individual's fundamental right to liberty of the person. . . The Constitution does not countenance the official imposition of severe pain or pressure for purposes of interrogation. This is true whether the protection is found in the Self-Incrimination Clause, the broader guarantees of the Due Process Clause, or both.

[. . .]

There is no rule against interrogating suspects who are in anguish and pain. The police may have legitimate reasons, borne of exigency, to question a person who is suffering or in distress. Locating the victim of a kidnaping, ascertaining the whereabouts of a dangerous assailant or accomplice, or determining whether there is a rogue police officer at large are some examples. That a suspect is in fear of dying, furthermore, may not show compulsion but just the opposite. The fear may be a motivating factor to volunteer information. The words of a declarant who believes his death is imminent have a special status in the law of evidence. . . . A declarant in Martinez's circumstances may want to tell his story even if it increases his pain and agony to do so. The Constitution does not forbid the police from offering a person an opportunity to volunteer evidence he wishes to reveal.

There are, however, actions police may not take if the prohibition against the use of coercion to elicit a statement is to be respected. The police may not prolong or increase a suspect's suffering against the suspect's will. That conduct would render government officials accountable for the increased pain. The officers must not give the impression that severe pain will be alleviated only if the declarant cooperates, for that, too, uses pain to extract a statement. In a case like this one, recovery should be available under § 1983 if a complainant can demonstrate that an officer exploited his pain and suffering with the purpose and intent of securing an incriminating statement. That showing has been made here.

[. . .]

The District Court found that Martinez “had been shot in the face, both eyes were injured; he was screaming in pain, and coming in and out of consciousness while being repeatedly questioned about details of the encounter with the police.” . . . His blinding facial wounds made it impossible for him visually to distinguish the interrogating officer from the attending medical personnel. The officer made no effort to dispel the perception that medical treatment was being withheld until Martinez answered the questions put to him. There was no attempt through Miranda warnings or other assurances to advise the suspect that his cooperation should be voluntary. Martinez begged the officer to desist and provide treatment for his wounds, but the questioning persisted despite these pleas and despite Martinez's unequivocal refusal to answer questions. . . .

The standards governing the interrogation of suspects and witnesses who suffer severe pain must accommodate the exigencies that law enforcement personnel encounter in circumstances like this case. It is clear enough, however, that the police should take the necessary steps to ensure that there is neither the fact nor the perception that the declarant's pain is being used to induce the statement against his will. In this case no reasonable police officer would believe that the law permitted him to prolong or increase pain to obtain a statement. The record supports the ultimate finding that the officer acted with the intent of exploiting Martinez's condition for purposes of extracting a statement.

Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals that a cause of action under § 1983 has been stated. The other opinions filed today, however, reach different conclusions as to the correct disposition of the case. Were Justice STEVENS, Justice GINSBURG, and I to adhere to our position, there would be no controlling judgment of the Court. In these circumstances, and because a ruling on substantive due process in this case could provide much of the essential protection the Self-Incrimination Clause secures, I join Part II of Justice SOUTER's opinion and would remand the case for further consideration.

Justice GINSBURG, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

[. . .]

Convinced that Chavez's conduct violated Martinez's right to be spared from self-incriminating interrogation, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. To assure a controlling judgment of the Court, however, . . . I join Part II of Justice SOUTER's opinion.