Describe the challenge to Miranda presented in Dickerson v. United States (2000) and the Supreme Court's ruling

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Dickerson was indicted for bank robbery using a firearm. His attorney moved to suppress a statement he made to the FBI, based on agents not reading him the Miranda warnings prior to interrogation. The government, however, relied on a portion of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (§3501), which made the admissibility of such statements turn solely on whether they were made voluntarily. The Fourth Circuit acknowledged that, although Dickerson had not received the Miranda warnings, his statement was admissible because it satisfied the requirements in §3501 . This court concluded that Miranda was not a constitutional holding and that, therefore, Congress could, by statute, have the final say on the admissibility question. The Supreme Court, however, reversed and, referring to Marbury v. Madison (1803), held: "Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress. . . ." The Court went on to assert: "Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture."