It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the Miranda rule
630, 636-37 (2004) (plurality opinion) (contending that the Miranda rule
is mere prophylaxis); Kit Kinports, The Supreme Court's Love-Hate Relationship with Miranda, 101 J.
Although the Miranda rule
was specifically designed by the Court to counter the interrogation techniques that the police had developed to bypass the involuntariness doctrine, (256) the decades since Miranda's issuance have produced numerous examples of state and federal police departments adapting to Miranda by employing a variety of ploys and devices that sidestep Miranda's protections.
58) In deciding that "Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution," (59) the Court held that the Miranda rule
was not a mere prophylaxis against constitutional violations but was itself a constitutional rue.
183) The Supreme Court disagreed, stating, "[T]he Miranda rule
protects against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, which in turn, is not implicated by the introduction at trial of physical evidence resulting from voluntary statements.
Second, because the Miranda rule
is prophylactic, it is governed by a balancing test.
It was also that the Court's Republican majority, in place since 1972, had so watered down the case's requirements as to reduce "the impact of the Miranda rule
on legitimate law enforcement while reaffirming the decision's core ruling.
decided in the last term, the Court upheld the Miranda rule
requiring that all criminal suspects be informed of their rights.
The Miranda rule
is quite specific, while the Shaw rule is not.
The value of recording interrogations is one point on which the Washington Legal Foundation's Cassell and UC-Irvine's Leo agree, despite holding radically different views on issues from the Miranda rule
to the frequency of wrongful convictions.
S 899 looks at procedural and judicial reforms including the Miranda rule
as well as victims' rights issues.
249) Both Seibert and Elstad also emphasized that the concerns underlying the Miranda rule
must be accommodated to law enforcement interests, (250) including the admissibility of reliable evidence, and other objectives of the criminal justice system.