The Supreme Court's Love-Hate Relationship with Miranda

By Kinports, Kit | Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Spring 2011 | Go to article overview

The Supreme Court's Love-Hate Relationship with Miranda


Kinports, Kit, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology


I. INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court's recent attitude towards its landmark ruling in Miranda v. Arizona (1) seems to be one of studied ambivalence. On the one hand, the Court has ruthlessly cut back on Miranda, construing it narrowly (2) and creating exceptions, (3) thereby "[w]eakening" its protections and "softening [its] impact." (4) On the other hand, the Court has resisted blatant attempts to subvert Miranda, whether on the part of Congress or individual police officers. In my view, the Court has adopted a pragmatic approach to Miranda. While it can be doctrinally unsatisfying and even incoherent at times, this pragmatic approach basically maintains the essential core structure of the Miranda rules and exceptions as the police have come to know them, while being wary of deliberate efforts to circumvent them. (5)

Chief Justice Warren's opinion in Miranda has always been surrounded by controversy. Even though the five-to-four decision was in many respects a compromise (6)--the Court did not ban any particular interrogation technique (7) or require the presence of counsel during police interrogations (8)--it immediately encountered resistance. Just two years after the Court issued the decision, Congress enacted the 1968 Crime Control Bill aimed at overturning it. (9) During the 1968 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon urged Congress to pass the bill, calling Miranda a "legal technicalit[y]" that had "very nearly rule[d] out the 'confession' as an effective ... tool in ... law enforcement." (10) Twenty years later, the Reagan Justice Department, under Attorney General Edwin Meese, described the Miranda ruling as "a derelict on the waters of the law," and proclaimed that "[o]verturning Miranda would ... be among the most important achievements of this administration ... in restoring the power of self-government to the people ... in the suppression of crime." (11)

But when the 1968 legislation ultimately reached the Supreme Court in 2000 in Dickerson v. United States, Chief Justice Rehnquist, a longtime critic of Miranda, surprised many Court-watchers by writing the majority opinion striking the statute down. (12) Despite language in prior Supreme Court decisions referring to Miranda warnings as "prophylactic" rules, "procedural safeguards associated with" the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution," (13) the seven Justices in the Dickerson majority concluded that Miranda was "a constitutional decision" that "may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress." (14) The Court did not go so far as to wholeheartedly embrace the Warren Court's decision, cautioning that "[w]hether or not we would agree with Miranda's reasoning and its resulting rule ... in the first instance, ... Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture." (15) Thus, Dickerson "froze in place the status quo," (16) even though in so doing it did not create a particularly tidy jurisprudential package. (17)

Three years later, in Missouri v. Seibert, a plurality of the Court likewise invalidated the "question-first" interrogation technique, a "practice of some popularity" that had been "promoted" in certain police departments. (18) Police using this tactic made a "'conscious decision'" to start interrogating a suspect without first reading Miranda warnings. (19) Then later, after they elicited a statement that was concededly inadmissible (because of the Miranda violation), they would belatedly provide Miranda warnings, secure a waiver, and "cover the same ground a second time" "'until [they got] the answer that [the suspect] already provided once."' (20) Calling question-first interrogation "a police strategy adapted to undermine the Miranda warnings," the plurality refused to allow the prosecution to introduce the second statement Seibert made following the administration of Miranda. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Supreme Court's Love-Hate Relationship with Miranda
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.