SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS MIRANDA WARNINGS
ACLU Calls Ruling a Victory for Individual Rights
St. Louis, June 26, 2000: Saying that Congress "may not supersede" its Constitutional rulings, the Supreme Court today voted 7 to 2 to uphold the symbol and substance of the Miranda warning, which requires police to warn suspects in custody of their rights prior to questioning.
"The ACLU has always believed, and the court today agreed, that effective law enforcement does not and should not depend on keeping people ignorant of their rights," said Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. Today's ruling in U.S. v. Dickerson strikes down a 1999 decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia saying that a 1968 congressional statute effectively overruled the Supreme Court's decision requiring the Miranda warnings.
'The importance of this decision to every American should not be underestimated,' said ACLU of Eastern Missouri Executive Director Matt LeMieux. 'It is unfortunate that many Americans have been misled into believing that Miranda only protects criminals. In fact, Miranda is an important part of rights that are among our most basic liberties, including: the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right to due process and equal protection of the laws and the right to assistance of legal counsel.'
Supporters of Miranda also took issue with the argument that the warning interfered with crime fighting, noting that just the opposite has taken place over the past 34 years. Citing a 1988 landmark American Bar Association report, "Criminal Justice in Crisis," the ACLU maintains that the warning "has done a great deal to protect the basic integrity of the interrogation process and promote the credibility of confessions." In today's decision, the Supreme Court recognized the warning's benefits by concluding that the Miranda opinion gave 'concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow.'
'The Court itself has said that the line between proper and permissible police conduct and techniques that are offensive to due process is, at best, a difficult one to draw,' added LeMieux. 'With today's ruling, the Court kept in place a bright line that continues to protect all citizens from unconstitutional policing methods.'