Dickerson v. United States
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 06:03:28 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Dickerson v. United States
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: The decision was...
#1
Sound
 
#2
Unsound
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 2

Author Topic: Dickerson v. United States  (Read 847 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 01, 2006, 11:30:17 PM »

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)

In the wake of Miranda v. Arizona, in which the Court held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect's statement made during custodial interrogation could be admitted in evidence, Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. §3501, which in essence makes the admissibility of such statements turn solely on whether they were made voluntarily. Petitioner, under indictment for bank robbery and related federal crimes, moved to suppress a statement he had made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on the ground he had not received "Miranda warnings" before being interrogated. The District Court granted his motion, and the Government took an interlocutory appeal. In reversing, the Fourth Circuit acknowledged that petitioner had not received Miranda warnings, but held that §3501 was satisfied because his statement was voluntary. It concluded that Miranda was not a constitutional holding, and that, therefore, Congress could by statute have the final say on the admissibility question.

Held: Miranda and its progeny in this Court govern the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2006, 04:53:12 PM »

Dickerson was an extremely unsound decision. It does not even pretend that the Miranda rule is based on some provision of the constitution. Instead, it asserts that the Supreme Court has the power to impose prophylactic restrictions on the government. Such a conclusion is not justified by any part of the Constitution.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 13 queries.