Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-2z2hb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-08T11:03:55.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cops and Robbers: Selective Literalism in American Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Peter M. Tiersma  and
Lawrence M. Solan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Police often ask people to consent to a search of their person or possessions. Many people agree to allow such searches because they interpret the officers' ostensible “requests” as indirect commands. Yet courts routinely interpret police utterances in this situation as requests. A similar issue arises in the context of custodial interrogation. People being interrogated are inclined to invoke their right to counsel in relatively indirect or tentative terms. Yet courts often conclude that the suspect did not really “request” the presence of counsel. We refer to this inconsistency as “selective literalism,” by which we mean that courts selectively consider pragmatic circumstances in interpreting the speech of suspects. Using analytical tools from linguistic theory, this article explores how courts employ selective literalism. It further examines some of the consequences of this inconsistent use of interpretive devices, both practically and jurisprudentially.

Type
Comment on the Presidential Address
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 229 - 266
Copyright
© 2004 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

The authors are grateful to Susan Herman, Joseph Sanders, and three anonymous reviewers of this journal for comments on an earlier draft of this article. We would also like to thank Heidi Brooks, Marji Molavi, and Tara Lombardi for research assistance. This work was supported by a summer research grant from Brooklyn Law School and by the Joseph Scott Fellowship of Loyola Law School.

References

References

Ainsworth, Janet E. (1993) “In a Different Register: The Pragmatics of Powerlessness in Police Interrogation,” 103 Yale Law J. 259–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amar, Akhil Reed (1997) The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words, 2d ed., Urmson, J. O. & Sbisà, M., eds. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Bartlett, John (1980) Familiar Quotations, 15th ed. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.Google Scholar
Breyer, Stephen (1992) “On the Uses of Legislative History in Interpreting Statutes,” 65 Southern California Law Rev. 845–74.Google Scholar
Cole, David (1999) No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
Conley, John M., & O'Barr, William M. (1998) Just Words. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam, & McGlone, Matthew S. (2000) Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul (1975) “Logic and Conversation,” in Cole, P., & Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gross, Samuel R., & Barnes, Katherine Y. (2002) “Road Work: Racial Profiling and Drug Interdiction on the Highway,” 101 Mich. Law Rev. 651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, David A. (1997) “‘Driving While Black’ and All Other Traffic Offenses: The Supreme Court and Pretextual Traffic Stops,” 87 J. of Criminal Law & Criminology 544–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin (1975) Language and Women's Place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach (1990) Talking Power: The Politics of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Leo, Richard A. (1996) “Inside the Interrogation Room,” 86 J. of Criminal Law & Criminology 266–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leo, Richard A., & Ofshe, Richard J. (1998) “The Consequences of False Confessions: Deprivations of Liberty and Miscarriages of Justice in the Age of Psychological Interrogation,” 88 J. of Criminal Law & Criminology 429–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepore, Ernest, & Van Gulick, Robert, eds. (1991) John Searle and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberg, Illya (2001) “Miranda in Ohio: The Effects of Robinette on the ‘Voluntary’ Waiver of Fourth Amendment Rights,” 44 Howard Law J. 349–74.Google Scholar
Midgley, Ian D. (1997) “Just One Question Before We Get to Ohio v. Robinette: ‘Are You Carrying Any Contraband…Weapons, Drugs, Constitutional Protections…Anything Like That? 48 Case Western Reserve Law Rev. 173–215.Google Scholar
Moore, Solomon (2001) “Race Profiling Suit Challenges CHP's Tactics,” Los Angeles Times, 28 May, B1.Google Scholar
Nadler, Janice (2003) “No Need to Shout: Bus Sweeps and the Psychology of Coercion,” 2002 Supreme Court Rev. 153–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Barr, William M. (1982) Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ofshe, Richard J., & Leo, Richard A. (1997) “The Decision to Confess Falsely: Rational Choice and Irrational Action,” 74 Denver University Law Rev. 979–1122.Google Scholar
Oliver, Wesley MacNeil (2000) “With an Evil Eye and an Unequal Hand: Pretextual Stops and Doctrinal Remedies to Racial Profiling,” 74 Tulane Law Rev. 1409–81.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin (1997) A Matter of Interpretation. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick F. (2003) Profiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. (1976) “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts,” 5 Language in Society 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. (1979) “Literal Meaning,” in Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. (1991) “Indirect Speech Acts,” in Davis, S., ed., Pragmatics: A Reader. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M. (1993) The Language of Judges. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M., & Tiersma, Peter M. (forthcoming) Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Steiker, Carol S. (1999) “‘First Principles’ of Constitutional Criminal Procedure: A Mistake?,” 112 Harvard Law Rev. 680–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. (1999) Legal Language. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom (1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Vanderveken, Daniel (1990) Meaning and Speech Acts, Volume I: Principles of Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Yovel, Jonathan (2002) “Rights and Rites: Initiation, Language and Performance in Law and Legal Education,” 3 Stanford Agora, available at http://lawschool.stanford.edu/agora/volume2/yovel.shml.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Bane v. State, 587 N.E.2d 97 (Ind. 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968).Google Scholar
Bunch v. Commonwealth, 304 S.E.2d 271 (Va. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 977 (1983).Google Scholar
Bustamonte v. Schneckloth, 448 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1971), rev'd. by Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).Google Scholar
California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991).Google Scholar
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).Google Scholar
Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 (1961).Google Scholar
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994).Google Scholar
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).Google Scholar
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).Google Scholar
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964).Google Scholar
Maglio v. Jago, 580 F.2d 202 (6th Cir. 1978).Google Scholar
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).Google Scholar
McGann v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corp., 8 F. 3d 1174 (7th Cir. 1993).Google Scholar
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1966).Google Scholar
People v. Bestelmeyer, 212 Cal. Rptr. 605 (Ct. App. 1985).Google Scholar
People v. Choynski, 30 P. 791 (Cal. 1892).Google Scholar
People v. Kendricks, 459 N.E.2d 1137 (Ill. App. 1984).Google Scholar
People v. Krueger, 412 N.E.2d 537 (Ill. 1980).Google Scholar
People v. Oppenheimer, 26 Cal. Rptr. 18 (Ct. App. 1962).Google Scholar
People v. Sanders, 188 Cal. 744 (1922).Google Scholar
People v. Traubert, 608 P.2d 342 (Colo. 1980).Google Scholar
Poyner v. Commonwealth, 329 S.E.2d 815 (Va. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 888 (1985).Google Scholar
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).Google Scholar
Singleton v. State, 344 So. 2d 911 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977).Google Scholar
Sleek v. State, 499 N.E.2d 751 (Ind. 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State v. Carty, 790 A.2d 903 (N.J. 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State v. Campbell, 367 N.W.2d 454 (Minn. 1985).Google Scholar
State v. Ferrier, 960 P.2d 927 (Wash. 1998).Google Scholar
State v. Johnson, 346 A.2d 66 (N.J. 1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State v. Moore, 744 S.W.2d 479 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State v. Retherford, 639 N.E.2d 498 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994).Google Scholar
United States v. $24,339.00 in United States Currency, WL 507517 (E.D. Tex. 1995).Google Scholar
United States v. Aloi, 9 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 1993).Google Scholar
United States v. Badru, 97 F.3d 1471 (D.C. Cir. 1996).Google Scholar
United States v. Baker, WL 146878 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).Google Scholar
United States v. Benitez, 899 F.2d 995 (10th Cir. 1990).Google Scholar
United States v. Benitez-Arreguin, 973 F.2d 823 (10th Cir. 1992).Google Scholar
United States v. Brugal, 209 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 2000).Google Scholar
United States v. Chaidez, 906 F.2d 377 (8th Cir. 1990).Google Scholar
United States v. Colin-Velasquez, 815 F. Supp. 1380 (D. Or. 1993).Google Scholar
United States v. Drayton, 122 S. Ct. 2105 (2002).Google Scholar
United States v. Erwin, 155 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 1998).Google Scholar
United States v. Gallego-Zapata, 630 F. Supp. 665 (D. Mass. 1986).Google Scholar
United States v. Garcia, 897 F.2d 1413 (7th Cir. 1990).Google Scholar
United States v. Gomez, WL 266552 (9th Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
United States v. Gray, 883 F.2d 320 (4th Cir. 1989).Google Scholar
United States v. Griffin, 530 F.2d 739 (7th Cir. 1976).Google Scholar
United States v. Herzbrun, 723 F.2d 773 (11th Cir. 1984).Google Scholar
United States v. Johnson, 71 F. Supp.2d 1379 (M.D. Ga. 1999).Google Scholar
United States v. McGill, 125 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar
United States v. Mondragon Farias, 43 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (D. Utah 1999).Google Scholar
United States v. Prestigiacomo, 504 F. Supp. 681 (E.D.N.Y. 1981).Google Scholar
United States v. Price, 54 F.3d 342 (7th Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1986).Google Scholar
United States v. Randolph, 789 F. Supp. 407 (D.D.C. 1992).Google Scholar
United States v. Rich, 992 F.2d 502 (5th Cir. 1993).Google Scholar
United States v. Sharpe, 845 F. Supp. 791 (D. Kansas 1994).Google Scholar
United States v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272 (5th Cir. 1973).Google Scholar
United States v. Valdiosera-Godinez, 932 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
United States v. Wilson, 895 F.2d 168 (4th Cir. 1990).Google Scholar
United States v. Yusuff, 96 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 1996).Google Scholar
United States v. Zapata, 180 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
United States v. Zapata, 997 F.2d 751 (10th Cir. 1993).Google Scholar