State v. Scales

Why This Case Matters

State v. Scales established one of the most important protections for criminal suspects in Minnesota. The Supreme Court used its supervisory power to require that all custodial interrogations — including Miranda warnings, waiver, and questioning — must be electronically recorded where feasible. If police question a suspect at a place of detention and fail to record it, the statement may be suppressed. Minnesota was one of the first states in the nation to adopt this rule.

The Facts

On October 4, 1992, Otha Brown was found dead in a Minneapolis alley. He had been stabbed 26 times. Police investigation focused on Michael Jerome Scales. Physical evidence linked Scales to the crime: blood was found on his clothing, his fingerprints were found in the victim’s van, and he had distributed Brown’s checks and credit cards after the killing.

During the investigation, police interrogated Scales. He gave a partial confession, but the interrogation was not fully recorded. The case went to trial, and Scales was convicted of first-degree and second-degree murder.

On appeal, the case raised a question that went beyond Scales’s individual conviction: should Minnesota require police to electronically record custodial interrogations? The Supreme Court took the opportunity to address this issue using its supervisory authority over the criminal justice system.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court affirmed Scales’s murder convictions. The physical evidence against him was strong, and the court found the partial confession was not the only basis for the verdict.

However, the court used the case to announce a new rule for all future cases. Exercising its supervisory power over the administration of justice, the court held that all custodial interrogation must be electronically recorded where feasible. When questioning takes place at a police station or other place of detention, recording is required — not optional. The recording must capture the entire interrogation, including Miranda warnings, the suspect’s waiver, and all questioning.

The court explained that recording protects everyone. It protects suspects from coerced or fabricated confessions. It protects police from false claims of misconduct. And it gives courts and juries the best evidence of what actually happened during questioning. If police fail to comply, the unrecorded statements may be suppressed — meaning the prosecution cannot use them at trial.

What This Means for You

• Your interrogation should be recorded. If you are questioned by police while in custody at a police station or jail, the entire interrogation — including your Miranda warnings — must be electronically recorded.
• Unrecorded statements can be challenged. If police did not record your custodial interrogation, your attorney can file a motion to suppress the statement. The court may exclude it from evidence.
• This rule protects against coercion. Recording creates an objective record of what happened during questioning. It prevents disputes about whether you were threatened, promised something, or denied your rights.
• You have the right to remain silent. Whether or not the interrogation is being recorded, you have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. You do not have to answer questions.
• Talk to a lawyer before talking to police. If you are arrested or brought in for questioning, ask for an attorney. A public defender or criminal defense lawyer can advise you on your rights before you make any statements.