State v. Whitehead

I concur with the result reached by the majority, but write separately to emphasize the analytical approach set forth in Pennsylvania v. Muniz, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990).

The nontestimonial aspects of the videotape do not invoke fifth amendment scrutiny. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1830, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); State v. Breeden, 374 N.W.2d 560, 562 (Minn.App.1985). Incriminating communications that are (1) testimonial in nature and (2) elicited during custodial interrogation, must be suppressed in the absence of Miranda warnings. Muniz, —…