{
  "id": "97-645",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "97-645",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100702,
      "date": "2004-07-20",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T20:12:05.628052",
      "title": "Repealing Miranda?: Background of the Controversy over Pretrial Interrogation and Self-Incrimination",
      "summary": "Although an involuntary confession has been inadmissible in federal cases since the nineteenth\ncentury, the Supreme Court did not denounce physically coercive abuses in State cases until its\ndecision in  Brown v. Mississippi . The  Brown  case established the basis for\nthe Fourteenth\nAmendment \"voluntariness\" standard as the due process test for assessing the admissibility of\nconfessions in State cases. Under this standard, the admissibility of a confession was evaluated on\na case by case basis which would be governed by the \"totality of the circumstances,\" which included\nthe facts of the case, the background of the accused, and the behavior of the police during the\ninterrogation.\n  In  Miranda v. Arizona , the Court established several procedures to safeguard the\n Fifth\nAmendment rights of persons during custodial interrogations. The Court reasoned that the suspects\nneeded the safeguards because \"[t]he circumstances surrounding in-custody interrogation can operate\nvery quickly to overbear the will of [the suspect...\" and without them no statement can be considered\nthe product of his/her free will.\n   Miranda  was controversial among policy-makers and academics who debated its\n legitimacy\nand desirability over thirty years after its judicial creation. One of the major arguments offered for\noverruling  Miranda  was that it had caused great difficulty to law enforcement efforts in\ncontrolling\ncrime. The ruling in  Dickerson v. United States , 530 U.S.  428 (2000), struck down 18\nU.S.C.  3501,\na federal law that allowed confessions elicited without a police advisory to be used at trial as long\nas the \"totality of circumstances\" demonstrated that they were given voluntarily.\n   Dickerson  made  Miranda 's constitutional status clear. The\n  Miranda  decisions announced during\nthe Court's 2003-2004 term, however, suggest that continued vitality of seemingly conficting\npre- Dickerson  caselaw is less clear.  United States v. Patane , divided the\nCourt so that no single\nrationale united a majority of its members, although five Justices joined in a plurality decision that\ndeclined to overrule its pre- Dickerson  decisions concerning the admissibility of physical\nderivate\nevidence. On the other hand,  Missouri v. Seibert  likewise resulted in a plurality opinion,\nbut in spite\nof contrary suggestions in the pre- Dickerson  caselaw five Justices found inadmissible\na confession\nintentionally wrung from the defendant before  Miranda  warnings and re-elicited\nthereafter. Five\nJustices did agree in  Yarborough v. Alvarado  that the state courts did not unreasonably\napply federal\nlaw when -- without considering the inexperienced suspect's age (17 years old) -- they determined\nthat  Miranda 's custodial threshold had not been crossed. And they all agreed in\n Fellers v. United\nStates , that the lower courts should not have addressed  Miranda/Dickerson \nimplications raised out\nof an interrogation that offended Sixth Amendment requirements.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/97-645",
          "sha1": "89f7d8338b2574215a898f1edfd48f6660e6a392",
          "filename": "files/20040720_97-645_89f7d8338b2574215a898f1edfd48f6660e6a392.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/97-645",
          "sha1": "8cf0a0fdf4e0e7b86601acd4583dad4c0395d7da",
          "filename": "files/20040720_97-645_8cf0a0fdf4e0e7b86601acd4583dad4c0395d7da.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}