Dickerson v. United States: The Case that Disappointed Miranda's Critics - And then its Supporters

46 Pages Posted: 25 May 2005  

Yale Kamisar

University of San Diego School of Law; University of Michigan Law School

Date Written: May 2005

Abstract

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss Dickerson v. United States intelligently without discussing Miranda, whose constitutional status Dickerson reaffirmed (or, one might say, resuscitated). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the Dickerson case intelligently without discussing cases the Court has handed down in the five years since Dickerson was decided. The hard truth is that in those five years the reaffirmation of Miranda's constitutional status has become less and less meaningful.

In this paper I want to focus on the Court's characterization of statements elicited in violation of the Miranda warnings as not actually "coerced" or "compelled" but obtained merely in violation of Miranda's "prophylactic rules." This terminology has plagued the Miranda doctrine and puzzled and provoked many commentators since then - Justice Rehnquist utilized this label to describe and to diminish Miranda - and he was the first Justice ever to do so - thirty-one years ago.

Keywords: Miranda warnings, prophylactic rules, rights against self incrimination, constitutional protection

JEL Classification: K10

Suggested Citation

Kamisar, Yale, Dickerson v. United States: The Case that Disappointed Miranda's Critics - And then its Supporters (May 2005). San Diego Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06-18. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=729163 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.729163

Yale Kamisar (Contact Author)

University of San Diego School of Law ( email )

5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110-2492
United States
619-260-4600, x8827 (Phone)

University of Michigan Law School ( email )

625 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
333
Rank
73,437
Abstract Views
3,721