It presents the facts of the case which led to the decision that an undercover law enforcement officer posing as a fellow inmate is not required to give Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect prior to questioning even if the response might be incriminating. The Perkins decision is viewed as an exception to Miranda on the issue of custody when the person in question may have been jailed against his will. The Perkins decision is also discussed as not being within the Massiah v. United States, sixth amendment line of decisions. It is argued that the police did not coerce the suspect, but tricked the suspect into a confession in a custodial situation. The author contends that in addition to amelioration of inherent coercion by the police-dominated environment, the Miranda decision also concerns information equivalency and provides suspects an opportunity for a bargaining process with counsel. Thus on the basis of this view of the original intent of the Miranda, Perkins was wrongly decided. 31 notes