It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the
Miranda rule.'"), archived at http://perma.cc/7VD7-SVVW, with Amar, supra note 164 (arguing that whenever there is an ongoing threat to public safety, all testimony, fruit, and leads from compelled testimony should be admissible).
630, 636-37 (2004) (plurality opinion) ("[T]he
Miranda rule is a prophylactic employed to protect against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause....
that these adjustments to the scope of the original
Miranda ruleAlthough 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." (60) This marked the first time the Court held that Miranda warnings were themselves "constitutionally based," and as such Congress could not legislate to circumvent them.
(14) In the other case, Patane, a different plurality made the bold assertion that police violate neither the Constitution nor the
Miranda rule itself when they merely fail to warn.
Second, because the
Miranda rule is prophylactic, it is governed by a balancing test.
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.
The
Miranda rule is quite specific, while the Shaw rule is not.
The "
Miranda rule," which makes a confession inadmissible in a criminal trial if the accused was not properly advised of his rights, has been so thoroughly integrated into the justice system that any child who watches television can recite the words: "You have the right to remain silent.
S 899 looks at procedural and judicial reforms including the
Miranda rule as well as victims' rights issues.
Relying on Elstad, both the three-Justice plurality and two concurring opinions in Seibert held that the interrogating officer's question-first procedure violated the "general goal of deterring improper police conduct [and] the Fifth Amendment goal of assuring trustworthy evidence." (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.
