Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + + +
added link to USSC decision
A majority of the [[Rehnquist Court]] was on record with the opinion that the [[U.S. Constitution]] does not require a reading of the Miranda warning. But in ''Dickerson v. United States'', 530 U.S. 428 (2000), a 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] upheld the Miranda warnings by saying that "the warnings have become part of our national culture." Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] railed against this decision in dissent, but the Miranda warnings remain mandatory to this day.
A majority of the [[Rehnquist Court]] was on record with the opinion that the [[U.S. Constitution]] does not require a reading of the Miranda warning. But in ''Dickerson v. United States'', 530 U.S. 428 (2000), a 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] upheld the Miranda warnings by saying that "the warnings have become part of our national culture." Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] railed against this decision in dissent, but the Miranda warnings remain mandatory to this day.
==References==
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=436 Complete text of ''Miranda v. Arizona'', from FindLaw.com]
[[Category:US Supreme Court Cases]]
[[Category:US Supreme Court Cases]]