Dickerson v. U.S.
530 U.S. 428 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The procedural safeguards established in Miranda v. Arizona are a constitutional rule that cannot be superseded or overruled by an Act of Congress. The Supreme Court's authority to interpret the Constitution may not be legislatively altered.
Facts:
- Charles Dickerson was identified as a suspect in a series of bank robberies.
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents located Dickerson and he was placed under interrogation at an FBI field office.
- During the interrogation, Dickerson made an incriminating statement admitting his role as the getaway driver in the robberies.
- Dickerson had not been advised of his Miranda rights before making the statement.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Dickerson was indicted in the United States District Court for bank robbery and other federal offenses.
- Dickerson filed a pretrial motion to suppress a statement he made to the FBI, arguing it was obtained in violation of Miranda.
- The District Court granted the motion to suppress the statement.
- The U.S. Government (appellant) filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit against Dickerson (appellee).
- The Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3501 was constitutional and that Dickerson's statement was admissible because it was voluntary.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3501, which makes the admissibility of a suspect's statement turn solely on whether it was made voluntarily, unconstitutionally supersede the procedural safeguards required by Miranda v. Arizona?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes. The federal statute is unconstitutional because Miranda v. Arizona announced a constitutional rule that Congress cannot supersede by legislation. The Miranda warnings are not merely supervisory rules of evidence but are rooted in the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. The Court's basis for this conclusion is that Miranda has been consistently applied to state court proceedings, and the Supreme Court only has authority to impose constitutional rules upon the states, not rules of evidence or procedure based on supervisory power. While subsequent cases have created exceptions and referred to the warnings as 'prophylactic,' these decisions represent normal modifications of a constitutional rule, not a change in its fundamental constitutional status. Because § 3501 reinstates the totality-of-the-circumstances voluntariness test that Miranda found insufficient to protect Fifth Amendment rights, the statute is an unconstitutional attempt to overrule a constitutional decision. Furthermore, the Court declines to overrule Miranda itself, citing stare decisis and the fact that the warnings have become deeply embedded in routine police practice and the national culture.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The federal statute is constitutional because violating the Miranda rules is not a violation of the Constitution itself. The majority's opinion is logically incoherent because it upholds Miranda as a 'constitutional rule' while refusing to state that a violation of Miranda is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Numerous post-Miranda decisions, such as Tucker, Quarles, and Elstad, were premised on the holding that Miranda's safeguards are merely 'prophylactic' and that their violation does not equate to unconstitutional compulsion. These precedents allowed for exceptions, such as using un-Mirandized statements for impeachment, which would be impossible if the statements were truly compelled. By striking down § 3501 without affirming that Miranda warnings are required by the Constitution, the Court illegitimately arrogates to itself a legislative power to create extra-constitutional rules and impose them on Congress and the states, which offends the principles of separation of powers. Stare decisis does not justify retaining Miranda, as its doctrinal underpinnings have been completely eroded by subsequent case law.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes Miranda's status as a constitutional requirement, resolving decades of academic and judicial debate over whether it was merely a prophylactic rule that Congress could modify. By striking down § 3501, the Court reinforced its own authority as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, making clear that Congress lacks the power to legislatively overrule the Court's constitutional holdings. This case solidifies the Miranda warnings as a mandatory, non-negotiable aspect of custodial interrogations, ensuring their continued prevalence in American law enforcement and criminal procedure.
