Evading Miranda: How Siebert and Patane Failed to Save Miranda

40 Pages Posted: 20 Nov 2017

Date Written: November 16, 2017


Seibert and Patane presented the perfect opportunities for the Court to put a stop to deliberate violations of Miranda, but the decisions do exactly the opposite. Thus, this Article concludes that the time has come for scholars likewise to ignore Miranda and focus instead on other protections against coercive interrogation tactics. Miranda was originally intended to provide a bright line rule that would protect suspects from coercive tactics that are inconsistent with the right against self-incrimination. It has failed to provide this protection, so the time has come to begin the search for alternative remedies.

Part II of this Article demonstrates how the Supreme Court's Miranda jurisprudence has gradually eroded the rule by creating incentives to interrogate even when the police may be aware that a suspect has not received or understood the warnings or when it is apparent that the suspect does not mean to waive his or her rights. Part III reviews the recent decisions in Seibert and Patane, both of which may encourage rather than curtail the growing practice of intentionally violating Miranda. The Article concludes with a plea for scholars and policy makers to look beyond Miranda and embrace new, bright line rules for custodial interrogations.

Keywords: Miranda warning, custodial interrogation, coersion

Suggested Citation

Thompson, Sandra Guerra, Evading Miranda: How Siebert and Patane Failed to Save Miranda (November 16, 2017). 40 Valparaiso University Law Review 645 (2006); U of Houston Law Center No. 2017-A-29. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3072576

Sandra Guerra Thompson (Contact Author)

University of Houston Law Center ( email )

4604 Calhoun Road
Houston, TX 77204-6060
United States

Register to save articles to
your library


Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics