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.
While it can be doctrinally unsatisfying and even incoherent at times, this pragmatic approach basically maintains the essential core structure of the Miranda rules
and exceptions as the police have come to know them, while being wary of deliberate efforts to circumvent them.
Although the two justices concurring in judgment agreed with the majority that the rationale of both Elstad and Tucker is even more applicable in this case, they found it "unnecessary to decide whether the detective's failure to give Patane his full Miranda warnings should be characterized as a violation of the Miranda rule
itself, or whether there is 'anything to deter' so long as the unwarned statements are not later introduced at trial, Id.
Once this pragmatic basis is recognized, the fact that "subsequent cases have reduced the impact of Miranda on legitimate law enforcement,"(27) and the further fact that it never did seem to have that much of an impact on the ability of police to get confessions, become sound reasons for maintaining the Miranda rule
rather than questioning its constitutional validity.
concurring) (stating that the overbreadth of the Miranda rule
can be defended on the ground that it facilitates "efficient judicial administration of the Fifth Amendment guarantee"); Berkemer, 468 U.
While Miranda rules
ban any questioning after the suspect has invoked his rights, the courts give police great leeway in the tactics that can be used once the suspect waives them.
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.
The Miranda rule
should be enforced every time someone is interrogated by police, including in prison.
20) Thus, 'if anything, our subsequent cases have reduced the impact of the Miranda rule
on legitimate law enforcement while reaffirming the decision's core ruling that unwarned statements may not be used as evidence in the prosecution's case in chief.
Key rulings in the 1960s established the Miranda rule
and the state's duty to provide a free lawyer if necessary.
in Dickerson "saved" the Miranda rule
, it did not touch the
The court's majority has eroded the Miranda rule
, significantly weakening protections for criminal suspects.