In the case of United States v. Muniz et al., 1962, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a defendant's statements made while intoxicated could be used against them in court. The defendants were arrested for public drunkenness and taken to jail where they answered questions about their personal information (name, address etc.) which was recorded by police officers without informing them that these responses could later be used as evidence in court. The Supreme Court held that such questioning did not violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination because it fell under routine booking question exception - basic biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services. However, if an officer should reasonably expect responses to incriminate a suspect then Miranda warnings are required before questioning regardless of intoxication level.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Muniz et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to overturn Muniz's conviction was based on a misinterpretation of the law and an overreach of judicial authority. He contended that there was no constitutional violation in this case, as Muniz had been given his Miranda rights before being questioned by police officers, and he voluntarily waived these rights when he chose to answer their questions without an attorney present. Furthermore, Justice Harlan believed that it was not within the Court's purview to determine whether or not a suspect fully understood his rights; rather, this should be left up to individual juries in each case. By imposing such strict requirements on law enforcement officials during interrogations, he feared that the Court would unduly hamper their ability to effectively investigate crimes and bring criminals to justice.