Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons^™

Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss

Michigan Law Review

Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …

Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz

Michigan Law Review

The oddest thing about Miranda is its politics - a point reinforced by the decision in, and the reaction to, Dickerson v. United States. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court faced the question whether Miranda ought to be overturned, either directly or by permitting legislative overrides. The lawyers, the literature, and the Court split along right-left - or, in the Court's case, right-center - lines, with the right seeking to do away with Miranda's restrictions on police questioning, and the left (or center) seeking to maintain them. The split is familiar. Reactions to Miranda have always divided along ideological lines, with …

Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii

Michigan Law Review

Paraphrasing Justice Holmes, law is less about logic than experience. Courts and scholars have now had thirty-four years of experience with Miranda v. Arizona, including the Court's recent endorsement in Dickerson v. United States last Term. Looking back over this experience, it is plain that the Court has created a Miranda doctrine quite different from what it has said it was creating. I think the analytic structure in Dickerson supports this rethinking of Miranda. To connect the dots, I offer a new explanation for Miranda that permits us to reconcile Dickerson and the rest of the post-Miranda doctrine with the …

Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein

Michigan Law Review

The Miranda conundrum runs something like this. If the Miranda decision represents true constitutional interpretation, and all unwarned statements taken during custodial interrogation are "compelled" within the meaning of the Self-Incrimination Clause, the impeachment and "fruits" exceptions to Miranda should fall. If it is not true constitutional interpretation, than the Court has no business reversing state criminal convictions for its violation. I offer here what I hope is a satisfying answer to this conundrum, on both descriptive and normative levels, that justifies not only Miranda but a host of similar Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Court decisions as well. In Part …

Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid

Michigan Law Review

Virtually all interrogations - or at least virtually all successful interrogations - involve some deception. As the United States Supreme Court has placed few limits on the use of deception, the variety of deceptive techniques is limited chiefly by the ingenuity of the interrogator. Interrogators still rely on the classic "Mutt and Jeff," or "good cop, bad cop," routine. Interrogators tell suspects that nonexistent eyewitnesses have identified them, or that still at-large accomplices have given statements against them. Interrogators have been known to put an unsophisticated suspect's hand on a fancy, new photocopy machine and tell him that the "Truth …

The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell

Michigan Law Review

Where's the rest of the opinion? That was my immediate reaction to reading the Supreme Court's terse decision in Dickerson, delivered to me via email from the clerk's office a few minutes after its release. Surely, I thought, some glitch in the transmission had eliminated the pages of discussion on the critical issues in the case. Yet, as it became clear that I had received all of the Court's opinion, my incredulity grew.

Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer

Michigan Law Review

Dickerson v. United States preserves the status quo regime for judicial oversight of police interrogation. That result could be seen, in the present climate, as a victory for due process values, but there remain many reasons for concern that existing safeguards are flawed - that they are either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Such concerns are partly empirical, of course. They depend on factual assessments of how much the Miranda rules do restrict the police. But such concerns also reflect a crucial, though often unstated, normative premise; they presuppose a certain view of how much the police should be …

Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo

Michigan Law Review

Miranda v. Arizona is the most well-known criminal justice decision - arguably the most well-known legal decision - in American history. Since it was decided in 1966, the Miranda decision has spawned voluminous newspaper coverage, political and legal debate, and academic commentary. The Miranda warnings themselves have become so well-known through the media of television that most people recognize them immediately. As Patrick Malone has pointed out, the Miranda decision has added its own lexicon of words and phrases to the American language. Perhaps with this understanding in mind, George Thomas recently suggested that the Miranda warnings are more well-known …

In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg

Michigan Law Review

Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda's foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct …

Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White

Michigan Law Review

As Yale Kamisar's writings on police interrogation demonstrate, our simultaneous commitments to promoting law enforcement's interest in obtaining confessions and to protecting individuals from overreaching interrogation practices have created a nearly irreconcilable tension. If the police must be granted authority to engage in effective questioning of suspects, it will obviously be difficult to insure that "the terrible engine of the criminal law . . . not . . . be used to overreach individuals who stand helpless against it." If we are committed to accommodating these conflicting interests, however, some means must be found to impose appropriate restraints on the …

Procedural Reforms In Capital Cases Applied To Perjury, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2001), Steven Clark

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Something Is Rotten In The Interrogation Room: Let's Try Video Oversight, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 537 (2001), Wayne T. Westling

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

You Have The Right To Better Safeguards: Looking Beyond Miranda In The New Millennium, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 637 (2001), Mandy Defilippo

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reflections On When "We, The People" Kill, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 713 (2001), Michael P. Seng

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Guns, Crime, And Punishment In America, Bernard E. Harcourt

Faculty Scholarship

There are over 200 million firearms in private hands in the United States, more than a third of which are handguns. In 1993 alone, it is estimated that 1.3 million victims of serious violent crime faced an offender with a gun. In 1999, there were approximately 563,000 such victims. Estimates of defensive uses of firearms – situations where individuals used a gun to protect themselves, someone else, or their property – range from 65,000 to 2.5 million per year. Punishments for crimes committed with a firearm are severe: under the federal firearms enhancement statute, the mandatory minimum sentence for use …

"Project Exile" And The Allocation Of Federal Law Enforcement Authority, Daniel Richman

Faculty Scholarship

With each report of violent crime statistics (whether rising or falling) or of the latest firearms outrage, we hear the antiphony of the gun control debate. Advocates of increased federal regulation decry the inadequacies of a regime that permits relatively free access to firearms and argue that the availability of guns is itself a spur to more deadly violence. Advocates of minimal regulation, for their part, condemn measures that, they say, will primarily penalize law-abiding citizens, and instead call for more vigorous enforcement of existing laws, targeting "criminals," not their weapons. When the antiphony intrudes on funerals, the effect can …

Turning Section 1983'S Protection Of Civil Rights Into An Attractive Nuisance: Extra-Textual Barriers To Municipal Liability Under Monell, Brian J. Serr

Georgia Law Review

This essay addresses the problem of "Making Government Pay" from a different perspective than Professor Levinson's article.1 Instead of focusing on social and economic barriers to deterrence and corrective justice, this essay will focus on the arbitrary legal barriers that the Supreme Court has placed between a constitutionally injured citizen and the municipal treasury. These legal barriers are more fairly attributable to the Supreme Court than to Congress because the barriers to establishing municipal liability under the Court's § 1983 jurisprudence are hardly self-evident from the statutory text of § 1983, nor are those barriers readily inferrable from that text. …

Afterword, Marshall S. Shapo

Georgia Law Review

It is a great pleasure to comment on these papers on a subject that has fascinated me since the beginning of my teaching career. My observations will no doubt reflect the roots of my thinking in an article I wrote on the subject in 1965' and other early publications, and, doubtless, my relative ignorance of the immense amount of case law that has flowed from courts since the mid-sixties. However, informed by a little independent study and refreshed by the commentaries, I venture a few somewhat angular thoughts. They do not" in any way pretend to be exhaustive with respect …

Corrective Justice And Constitutional Torts, Bernard P. Dauenhauer, Michael L. Wells

Georgia Law Review

Tort liability in the private realm may be understood both as "an instrument aimed... at deterrence... [and] a way of achieving corrective justice between the parties."' Following the common law model, the Supreme Court has borrowed this normative framework for constitutional torts, ruling that the aims of liability for damages are to vindicate constitutional rights and to deter constitutional violations. A recent article by Daryl Levinson takes issue vith this approach. Levinson argues that the superficial similarities between public torts and private torts conceal real differences, to which neither the Court nor scholars have paid adequate attention. The main point …

A Claim For Third Party Standing In America's Prisons, N. Jeremi Duru

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler

Michigan Law Review

Few doctrines of constitutional criminal procedure generate as much controversy as the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Beyond the basic mandate of the rule - that evidence obtained in violation of an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding - little else is agreed upon. The precise date of the exclusionary rule's inception is uncertain, but it has been applied by the judiciary for over eight decades. While the Supreme Court has emphasized that the rule is a "judicially created remedy," and not a "personal constitutional right," this characterization provokes argument as …

Wilson, V Layne: Bans Press With Police In The Home, But Leaves Media Ride-Alongs Intact, Kathy A. Brown

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy And Punishment: Why An As Applied Approach, As Applied To Separation Of Powers Doctrines, Is Unconstitutional, Todd W. Wyatt

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment will argue that an as applied approach allows the executive branch, whether at the state or federal level, to encroach into the legislative realm by rendering a statute unconstitutional as a result of the way the statute is administered. Section II of this Comment will begin by examining the history of the as applied and on its face double jeopardy approaches during the last 20 years. After a close examination of the decisions in Halper and Hudson in sections II.B and II.C, this Comment will explain why the holding of Hudson, though correct in its result, was …

Case Notes: State V. Jackson: Warning - Roadblock Ahead! Louisiana Creates Log Jam Of Search And Seizure Analysis, Marc L. Roark

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure – Police Searches On Public School Campuses In New Mexico – State V. Tywayne H., Michael W. Doyle

Faculty Scholarship

In State v. Tywayne H. the New Mexico Court of Appeals held that the lowered standard of reasonable suspicion that the United States Supreme Court applied to school officials in New Jersey v. T.L.O. would not apply to police officers invited onto a public school campus if the police officers conducted the search solely at their own discretion. Thus, the court held that a police officer will be held to the standard of probable causefor searches on public school campuses. Prior to Tywayne H., New Mexico courts had not addressed the standard to which police would be held when …

Congress' Arrogance, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Does Dickerson v. U.S., reaffirming Miranda and striking down §3501 (the federal statute purporting to "overrule" Miranda), demonstrate judicial arrogance? Or does the legislative history of §3501 demonstrate the arrogance of Congress? Shortly after Dickerson v. U.S. reaffirmed Miranda and invalidated §3501, a number of Supreme Court watchers criticized the Court for its "judicial arrogance" in peremptorily rejecting Congress' test for the admissibility of confessions. The test, pointed out the critics, had been adopted by extensive hearings and debate about Miranda's adverse impact on law enforcement. The Dickerson Court did not discuss the legislative history of §3501 at all. However, …

Winning The Battle, Losing The War?: Judicial Scrutiny Of Prisoners' Statutory Claims Under The Americans With Disabilities Act, Christopher J. Burke

Michigan Law Review

When he was convicted in 1994 of drunken driving, escape, and resisting arrest, Ronald Yeskey was sentenced to serve 18 to 36 months in a Pennsylvania prison. In addition, the judge recommended that Yeskey be sent to a motivational boot camp operated by the state. Upon successful completion of the boot camp program, Yeskey's sentence would then be reduced to six months. Although he eagerly wanted to participate, the prison refused him entrance into the boot camp program because of his history of hypertension, and also denied him admission into an alternative program for the disabled. As a result, he …

It Is Not Right Under The Constitution To Stop And Frisk Minority People Because They Don't Look Right, L. Darnell Weeden

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

W. E. B. Du Bois Fbi Files (Foia), William E.B. Du Bois

United States Department of Justice: Publications

Covers period 1942-1960.

William Edward Burghardt "W. E. B." Du Bois was an American sociologist, historian, civil rights activist, Pan-Africanist, author, writer and editor.

PDF file is 530 pages.

California's Sexually Violent Predator Act: The Role Of Psychiatrists, Courts, And Medical Determinations In Confining Sex Offenders, Carolyn B. Ramsey

Publications

No abstract provided.