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.
