Miranda, Post 1966 > Case Descriptions
Excerpts from Cases Referenced in "Miranda, Post 1966"
Beckwith v. US (1976): "the government's suspicion of guilt is not factored into whether one should receive Miranda rights."
-Syllabus of Beckwith v. US Oregon v. Mathiason (1977): "police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect." -Syllabus of Oregon v. Mathiason New York v. Quarles (1984): "The doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda do not require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety." -Syllabus of New York v. Quarles Dickerson v. US (2000): "Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress." -Syllabus of Dickerson v. US Missouri v. Seibert (2004): "Failure to give Miranda warnings and obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained." -Syllabus Missouri v. Seibert Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010): "A suspect’s Miranda right to counsel must be invoked “unambiguously"... If the accused makes an “ambiguous or equivocal” statement or no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, or ask questions to clarify the accused’s intent" -Syllabus Berghuis v. Thompkins Maryland v. Shatzer (2010): "The protections offered by Miranda, which we have deemed sufficient to ensure that the police respect the suspect’s desire to have an attorney present the first time police interrogate him, adequately ensure that result when a suspect who initially requested counsel is reinterrogated after a break in custody that is of sufficient duration to dissipate its coercive effects." -Assenting Opinion of Maryland v. Shatzer Howes v. Fields (2012): "The Sixth Circuit’s categorical rule—that imprisonment, questioning in private, and questioning about events in the outside world create a custodial situation for Miranda purposes—is simply wrong" -Syllabus of Howes v. Fields |
"Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture..."
-Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, a former outspoken proponent against the ruling from Miranda v. Arizona, after voting to uphold the Miranda ruling in Dickerson v. US (2000). Current Supreme Court Justices who may alter the protections of Miranda in the near future. (2013, Credit: NPR)
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: the Boston Bomber whose Miranda Rights were withheld under the public safety clause established in New York v. Quarles (2013, Credit: AP/FBI)
|