Dickerson v. United States is one such case where the Fourth Circuit considered §3501 sua sponte and applied the statute in the absence of Miranda warnings. This action by the Fourth Circuit raises four issues which will be addressed in this paper. Part I addresses the issue of whether the federal executive branch can decline to enforce a law passed by Congress will be examined, as well as the related question of whether, in the face of executive refusal to use a law, can the courts sua sponte rely on that law to decide a case. In Part 11 the Miranda rule will be examined to determine if it is only a prophylactic rule that is not constitutionally required. Part III is a discussion and examination of the character of the Miranda rule and the comment made by Judge Michael in Dickerson concerning the applicability of a prophylactic rule to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. An attempt will be made to analyze what the effect would be if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds §3501 in Part IV.
Brenda E. Mallinak,
Dickerson and the Future of Miranda,
Rich. J.L. & Pub. Int.
Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/jolpi/vol4/iss1/5