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.
