U.S. v. Dickerson

Miranda

U.S. v. Dickerson

Name

Class

Date

Professor

U.S. v. Dickerson

After the Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona were the Court held that certain warnings must be given to a criminal suspect before any statements can be made during a custodial interrogation in order for this statement to be admitted as evidence in a court of law. In response to this higher court ruling Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. §3501, which basically makes the admissibility of custodial statements turn solely on whether they were made voluntarily. In the case of Dickerson the petitioner attempted to suppress a statement he had made to police citing he was never warned of his right to Miranda.

After Dickerson was indicted on bank robbery and several other federal crimes he attempted to have a statement he made to police suppressed. Due to Miranda if a suspect is in the custody of the police their statements are protected but in this case the statement made by Dickerson was made voluntarily. The trial judge agreed and the government appealed the case. The appeals court determined the statement was not in fact protected because it was made voluntarily and met the requirements of a voluntary statement in §3501. The Fourth Circuit Court of appeals concluded that Miranda was not a constitutional holding, and that, therefore, Congress could by statute have the final say on the admissibility question (FindLaw, 2012).

When considering the question of can most safely be entrusted with protecting citizens against abuses of government power the answer is the Supreme Court. If the government is allowed to establish the laws and then counter the rulings that are made by Supreme Court where the necessary checks and balances are designed to protect the citizen. The point of having three branches of government is to ensure there are not governmental abuses are allowed to occur. Because the Supreme Court determined the Miranda was in fact a constitutional right does not mean that Congress does not have the right to create a law broadening or limiting the rights of Miranda.

Since Miranda has been applied against the states for almost forty years since its inception it cannot be credibly be argued that it is just a rule for federal courts because it is a fundamental right located in the Constitution. The constitution guarantees the citizens due process rights and in order to ensure those rights are protected the Miranda ruling and the Exclusionary rule are in place to protect the citizen from abuses by the government. If the Supreme Court rules that Miranda or any other rule applies because it is located in the Constitution then it becomes a law of the nation. On the other hand if Congress establishes a law that is in relation to the Miranda Ruling such as 18 U. S. C. §3501 the Supreme Court has the right to review the law for its constitutionality.

The Supreme Court is the final say on many controversial issues in society. While it would appear that the Supreme Court has ultimate power it in fact does not. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution when questions arise in society concerning a potential violation of the freedom of the citizen. Without the Supreme Court and rulings such as the Miranda ruling the police would be free to abuse their power and violated the due process rights of the citizen. The Supreme Court is not the ultimate power but the final checks and balance on laws established in the country.

Without this final judicial review citizens in society would not receive the protections intended by our fore fathers when creating a constitution designed to ensure the freedoms of the citizen. For example if Congress established a law where police officers can enter the home of a citizen as long as they believe something illegal is occurring police officers would be the homes of citizens without their permission, reasonable cause, or a warrant. If there was no Supreme Court there would be no way to abolish this blatantly unconstitutional law. The Supreme Court is necessary to protect the rights of the citizen and to assure the constitution is not violated.

When considering if the decision made by the Supreme Court in Dickerson has implications for the federal exclusionary rule there is a direct link. Because the Exclusionary Rule applies to the exclusion of evidence illegally obtained if a statement is considered voluntary it can no longer be excluded because it could not be considered to be obtained illegally. In other word the exclusionary rule applies to any illegal evidence including any illegally obtained statement. If a statement is obtained illegally it is subject to being excluded from the court process but if voluntary statements do not apply to Miranda then the Exclusionary Rule cannot be applied to the voluntarily custodial statement.

Miranda is a command of the Constitution and cannot be overruled by Congress but the Supreme Court has ruled that the exclusionary rule is a court made rule and not a command of the constitution because the constitution does not directly outline this right but in order to ensure the rights afforded to the citizen in the constitution are protected the exclusionary rule is necessary. The Exclusionary Rule ensures that the rights afforded in the constitution are protected by holding criminal justice professionals responsible if the engage in misconduct (Woodfin, 2009). While the Constitution does not directly provide for an exclusionary rule it does provide the authority to the Supreme Court to make these types of rulings.

The Miranda Warning is a command of the US Constitution because the Constitution directly provides for the right of the citizen to be informed of their right to have an attorney and the right to avoid making statements that would be incriminating. Because the constitution directly provides this right and assumption would be made that voluntary statements would not apply. The due process rights afforded the citizen are there to ensure they are not forced, coerced, or set up not to protect citizens that freely admit to a crime whether spontaneously or not.

References

FindLaw. (2012). Dickerson Vs. United states. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-5525

Woodfin, K. (2009). The Exclusionary Rule. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from

http://www.woodfin.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=the-exclusionary