Dickerson v. United States
In the wake of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 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, id., at 479, 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. Pp. 432–444.
(a) Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress. Given § 3501's express designation of voluntariness as the touchstone of admissibility, its omission of any warning requirement, and its instruction for trial courts to consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the giving of the confession, this Court agrees with the Fourth Circuit that Congress intended § 3501 to overrule Miranda. The law is clear as to whether Congress has constitutional authority to do so. This Court has supervisory authority over the federal courts to prescribe binding rules of evidence and procedure. Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 426. While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345–348, it may not supersede this Court's decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution, see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517–521. That Miranda announced a constitutional rule is demonstrated, first and foremost, by the fact that both Miranda and two of its companion cases applied its rule to proceedings in state courts, and that the Court has consistently done [p429] so ever since. See, e.g., Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (per curiam). The Court does not hold supervisory power over the state courts, e.g., Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221, as to which its authority is limited to enforcing the commands of the Constitution, e.g., Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 422. The conclusion that Miranda is constitutionally based is also supported by the fact that that case is replete with statements indicating that the majority thought it was announcing a constitutional rule, see, e.g., 384 U.S., at 445. Although Miranda invited legislative action to protect the constitutional right against coerced self-incrimination, it stated that any legislative alternative must be “at least as effective in apprising accused persons of their right of silence and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it.” Id., at 467.
A contrary conclusion is not required by the fact that the Court has subsequently made exceptions from the Miranda rule, see, e.g., New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649. No constitutional rule is immutable, and the sort of refinements made by such cases are merely a normal part of constitutional law. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 306—in which the Court, in refusing to apply the traditional “fruits” doctrine developed in Fourth Amendment cases, stated that Miranda's exclusionary rule serves the Fifth Amendment and sweeps more broadly than that Amendment itself—does not prove that Miranda is a nonconstitutional decision, but simply recognizes the fact that unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment are different from unwarned interrogation under the Fifth. Finally, although the Court agrees with the court-appointed amicus curiae that there are more remedies available for abusive police conduct than there were when Miranda was decided—e.g., a suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388—it does not agree that such additional measures supplement § 3501's protections sufficiently to create an adequate substitute for the Miranda warnings. Miranda requires procedures that will warn a suspect in custody of his right to remain silent and assure him that the exercise of that right will be honored, see, e.g., 384 U.S., at 467, while § 3501 explicitly eschews a requirement of preinterrogation warnings in favor of an approach that looks to the administration of such warnings as only one factor in determining the voluntariness of a suspect's confession. Section 3501, therefore, cannot be sustained if Miranda is to remain the law. Pp. 432–443.
(b) This Court declines to overrule Miranda. Whether or not this Court would agree with Miranda's reasoning and its rule in the first instance, stare decisis weighs heavily against overruling it now. Even in constitutional cases, stare decisis carries such persuasive force that the Court has always required a departure from precedent to be supported by some special justification. E.g., United States v. Inter- [p430] national Business Machines Corp., 517 U.S. 843, 856. There is no such justification here. Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture. See Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 331–332. While the Court has overruled its precedents when subsequent cases have undermined their doctrinal underpinnings, that has not happened to Miranda. If anything, subsequent cases have reduced Miranda's impact on legitimate law enforcement while reaffirming the decision's core ruling. The rule's disadvantage is that it may result in a guilty defendant going free. But experience suggests that § 3501's totality-of-the-circumstances test is more difficult than Miranda for officers to conform to, and for courts to apply consistently. See, e.g., Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 515. The requirement that Miranda warnings be given does not dispense with the voluntariness inquiry, but cases in which a defendant can make a colorable argument that a self-incriminating statement was compelled despite officers' adherence to Miranda are rare. Pp. 443–444.
166 F.3d 667, reversed.
REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined, post, p. 444.
James W. Hundley, by appointment of the Court, 528 U.S. 1072, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Carter G. Phillips, Jeffrey T Green, and Kurt H. Jacobs.
Solicitor General Waxman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Attorney General Reno, Assistant Attorney General Robinson, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, James A. Feldman, and Lisa S. Blatt.
Paul G. Cassell, by invitation of the Court, 528 U.S. 1045, argued the cause as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Daniel J Popeo and Paul D. Kamenar.*
Notes
[edit]* ↑ Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union by Jonathan L. Abram, Audrey J Anderson, Steven R. Shapiro, Vivian Berger, Susan N. Herman, and Stephen Schulhofer; [p431] for the House Democratic Leadership by Charles Tiefer and Jonathan W. Cuneo; for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. by Paul M. Smith, Deanne E. Maynard, Lisa B. Kemler, and John T. Philipsborn; for the National Legal Aid and Defender Association by Charles D, Weisselberg and Michelle Falkoff; for the Rutherford Institute by James Joseph Lynch, Jr., and John W. Whitehead; for Griffin B. Bell by Robert S. Litt, John A Freedman, and Daniel C. Richman; and for Benjamin R. Civiletti by Mr. Civiletti, pro se, Kenneth C. Bass III, and John F. Cooney.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of South Carolina et al. by Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, Treva Ashworth, Deputy Attorney General, Kenneth P Woodington, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Travey Colton Green, Assistant Attorney General; for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office by Theodore B. Olson, Douglas R. Cox, and Miguel A- Estrada; for Arizona Voices for Victims et al. by Douglas Beloof; for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives by Geraldine R. Gennet, Kerry W. Kircher, and Michael L. Stern; for the Center for the Community Interest et al. by Daniel P. Collins, Kristin Linsley Myles, and Kelly M. Klaus; for the Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution by Michael P. Farris; for Citizens for Law and Order et al. by Theodore M. Cooperstein; for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger, Charles L. Hobson, and Edwin Meese III; for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association by Robert E Hoyt; for the Fraternal Order of Police by Patrick F. Philbin and Thomas T Rutherford, for the National Association of Police Organizations et al. by Stephen R. McSpadden, Robert J Cynkar, and Margaret A Ryan; for the National District Attorneys Association et al. by Lynne Abraham, Ronald Eisenberg, Jeffrey C. Sullivan, John M. Tyson, Jr., Grover Trask, Christine A Cooke, John B. Dangler, and Richard E. Trodden; for Former Attorneys General of the United States William P. Barr and Edwin Meese III by Andrew G. McBride; for Senator Orrin G. Hatch et al. by Senator Hatch, pro se; and for Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez by Davis J Wilson.
Wayne W. Schmidt, James P Manak, and Bernard J Farber filed a brief for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., et al. as amici curiae.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse