In the 2002 case of Ben Chavez v. Oliverio Martinez, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officer Ben Chavez did not violate Oliverio Martinez's Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation while Martinez was in severe pain and repeatedly asked for medical treatment. The court held that because no criminal proceedings had been initiated against him at the time of questioning, his right to avoid self-incrimination hadn't been violated as per Miranda v. Arizona (1966). However, it left open whether such conduct might be actionable under a substantive due process theory or other constitutional provisions. Additionally, they found that Chavez was entitled to qualified immunity on claims related to violation of Fourteenth Amendment rights since there were no clear precedents establishing this right at the time of incident.

In the dissenting opinion for BEN CHAVEZ v. OLIVERIO MARTINEZ, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, argued that Martinez did not have a constitutional right to be free from coercive questioning as he was never prosecuted for any crime. They contended that Chavez's actions were covered under qualified immunity because it wasn't clearly established at the time of the incident that his conduct violated any constitutional rights. The dissenters also disagreed with the majority's decision to create a new rule allowing civil liability for law enforcement officers who use psychological coercion during interrogations without filing charges against an individual. They believed this could potentially deter police from conducting necessary investigations out of fear of personal liability.