Charles Thomas Dickerson v. United States (530 U.S. 428)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 26, 2000 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 530 U.S. 428 · 120 S. Ct. 2326
- Decided
- June 26, 2000
- Term
- October Term 1999
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Rehnquist
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
- Constitutional ruling
- Federal law held unconstitutional
Opinion excerpt
CHIEF Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), we held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect’s statement made during custodial interrogation could be admitted in evidence. In the wake of that decision, Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. § 8501, which in essence laid down a rule that the admissibility of such statements should turn only on whether or not they were voluntarily made. We hold that Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress, and we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves. We therefore hold that Miranda and its progeny in this Court govern the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts. Petitioner Dickerson was indicted for bank robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery, and using a firearm in the course of committing a crime of violence, all in violation of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code. Before trial, Dickerson moved to suppress a statement he had made at a Federal Bureau of Investigation field office, on the grounds that he had not received “Miranda warnings” before being interrogated. The District Court granted his motion to suppress, and the Government took an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.…
Excerpt of a 27,759-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.