Gladden v. Roach

What This Case Is About

Richard Gladden was arrested twice — once by North Texas State University police and once by Denton, Texas police. Both times, he refused to provide his name and biographical information during booking, asserting his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. He was charged with failure to identify himself. In one arrest, he was held for 87 hours before being arraigned. He sued under § 1983. The Fifth Circuit held that routine booking questions are not “interrogation” under Miranda, but that the extended detention violated his constitutional rights.

The Facts

On April 23, 1983, NTSU police officer Randy Roach arrested Gladden for public intoxication. At the university police station, Roach asked Gladden for his name, address, and date of birth to complete the arrest report. Gladden refused to answer, asserted his right to remain silent, and asked for an attorney. Roach warned that continued refusal would result in a charge for failure to identify. When Gladden tried to use the phone without permission, Roach physically restrained him and transported him to the Denton Municipal Jail, where he was charged with public intoxication and failure to identify. A jury later found Gladden not guilty of public intoxication, and the failure-to-identify charge was dismissed.

On September 15, 1984, Denton police arrested Gladden at a loud party after he interfered with officers trying to shut it down. Again at booking, Gladden refused to provide biographical information. Two friends posted a $200 bond, but after the paperwork was completed, Gladden refused to accept the bond. He was held for 87 hours before being arraigned before a magistrate and released on a $400 surety bond.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit addressed two key issues. First, the court held that routine booking questions seeking biographical data — name, address, date of birth — are not “interrogation” under the Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona. Following established Circuit precedent from United States v. Menichino, the court explained that these straightforward questions are part of the booking routine and are not designed to elicit incriminating responses. Since identity was not an element of either public intoxication or disorderly conduct, the questions were not incriminating.

Second, the court upheld the district court’s finding that Gladden’s 87-hour detention before arraignment following his September 1984 arrest violated his constitutional rights. The court awarded nominal damages of $1.00 for this violation, recognizing that while Gladden’s rights were violated by the extended detention, his own refusal to accept the posted bond contributed to the situation.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Gladden clarifies an important boundary: the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent does not extend to routine booking questions about your identity. You can be charged under state law for refusing to provide your name and biographical information during booking. This is important context for anyone considering refusing to cooperate during the booking process.

However, the case also establishes that extended pretrial detention without a timely arraignment violates constitutional rights — even if the detention is only worth nominal damages. If you were held for an extended period without being brought before a magistrate, Gladden supports your claim.

Key Takeaway

You do not have a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer basic booking questions about your identity. Routine questions asking for your name, address, and date of birth are not “interrogation” under Miranda and do not trigger the right to counsel. However, you do have a constitutional right to a timely arraignment, and prolonged detention without one — even if partly caused by your own noncooperation — violates the Fourth Amendment.