Miranda Exclusionary Rule Re-Affirmed: US v Dickerson
| Published date | 01 January 2001 |
| Date | 01 January 2001 |
| Author | Peter Mirfield |
| DOI | 10.1177/136571270100500104 |
| Subject Matter | Case Note |
CASE
NOTE
Miranda
exclusionary rule re-affirmed:
US
v Dickerson
6y
Peter
Mirfield
Jesus
College,
Oxford
n
two
landmark cases in the
1960s.
Mapp
v
Ohio’
and
Miranda
v
Arizona.’
the Supreme Court announced automatic exclusionary
rules relating to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United
States Constitution. Each rule was applicable in both federal and state cases3
According to
Mapp.
evidence acquired by an unreasonable search or seizure,
in breach of the Fourth Amendment, was to be suppressed.
Miranda
decided
that confessions acquired without the police having respected appropriate
procedural safeguards were to be excluded by reference to the Fifth
Amendment’s prohibition on a person being ‘compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself. More specifically, before any custodial
interrogation, a suspect should be alerted to certain rights which he
possesses. Neither
Mapp
nor
Miranda
has enjoyed a trouble-free history?
so
the
decision of the Supreme Court in
US
v
Dickerson’
to reaffirm the vitality of
Miranda.
albeit not in the most resounding terms, is of considerable signifi-
cance. Though the key question for decision was a narrow constitutional one,
1
367
US
643 (1961).
2 384
US
436 (1966).
3
Mapp
extended to state cases what was already the rule in federal ones. One of the four
applicants in
Miranda
(westover) had been prosecuted federally.
4
For
extended treatment
of
the jurisprudence concerning both cases (up to July
1997).
see
P.
Mirfield,
Silence, Confessions and Improperly Obtained Evidence
(Clarendon Press: Oxford,
1997)
319-339.
5
120
S
Ct
2326 (2000).
THE
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
OF
EWDENCE
&
PROOF
~
61
To continue reading
Request your trial