Legal Opinion
Dickerson v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 26, 2000No. 99-5525PublishedCited by 1,634 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Rehnquist
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), we held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect’s statement made during custodial interrogation could be admitted in *432evidence. In the wake of that decision, Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. § 8501, which in essence laid down a rule that the admissibility of such statements should turn only on whether or not they were voluntarily made. We hold that Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress, and we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves. We therefore hold that Miranda and its…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1,634 opinions
- Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Arizona v. GantSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Berghuis v. ThompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Missouri v. SeibertSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Ramos v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
1,629 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.