Dickerson v. United States
United States Supreme Court
530 U.S. 428, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000)
- Written by Sarah Venti, JD
Facts
Dickerson (defendant) was indicted for bank robbery. Dickerson moved to have statements he made during an FBI interrogation suppressed, claiming he never received proper Miranda warnings. The trial court found that Dickerson had not in fact received proper Miranda warnings. However, two years after Miranda
v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was decided, Congress passed 18 U.S.C. § 3501, which permits statements made by a suspect during a custodial police interrogation to be admitted at trial as long as they were made voluntarily. The trial court held that Miranda was not a constitutional holding, and Congress therefore had the authority to effectively overrule Miranda with a statute. The court of appeals agreed, holding that the protections put forth in Miranda are not constitutionally required.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)
Dissent (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
