Citation network
Dickerson Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 2000
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Dickerson v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
States - 530 U.S. 428 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Dickerson V. UnitedSearch
-
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-5525. Argued April 19, 2000-Decided June 26, 2000 In the wake of Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Court has supervisory authority over the federal courts to prescribe binding rules of evidence and procedure. Carlisle v. UnitedSearch
-
authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e. g., Palermo v. UnitedSearch
-
not supersede this Court's decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution, see, e. g., City of Boerne v. FloresSearch
-
in state courts, and that the Court has consistently done 429 so ever since. See, e. g., Stansbury v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 318 (per curiam). The Court does not hold supervisory power over the state courts, e. g., Smith v. PhillipsSearch
-
as to which its authority is limited to enforcing the commands of the Constitution, e. g., Mu'Min v. VirginiaSearch
-
required by the fact that the Court has subsequently made exceptions from the Miranda rule, see, e. g., New York v. QuarlesSearch
-
is immutable, and the sort of refinements made by such cases are merely a normal part of constitutional law. Oregon v. ElstadSearch
-
available for abusive police conduct than there were when Miranda was decided--e. g., a suit under Bivens v. SixSearch
-
has always required a departure from precedent to be supported by some special justification. E. g., United States v. Inter-Search
-
in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture. See Mitchell v. UnitedSearch
-
more difficult than Miranda for officers to conform to, and for courts to apply consistently. See, e. g., Haynes v. WashingtonSearch
-
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
England and then the United States recognized that coerced confessions are inherently untrustworthy. See, e. g., King v. RuddSearch
-
King v. WarickshallSearch
-
King v. ParrattSearch
-
Queen v. GarnerSearch
-
Queen v. BaldrySearch
-
Hopt v. TerritorySearch
-
Pierce v. UnitedSearch
-
Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Bram v. UnitedSearch
-
Brown v. MississippiSearch
-
some 30 different cases decided during the era that intervened between Brown and Escobedo v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 218 , 223 (1973). See, e. g., Haynes v. WashingtonSearch
-
Malinski v. NewSearch
-
Stein v. NewSearch
-
jurisprudence, and thus continue to exclude confessions that were obtained involuntarily. But our decisions in Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
we agree with the Court of Appeals that Congress intended by its enactment to overrule Miranda. See also Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
we may use that authority to prescribe rules of evidence and procedure that are binding in those tribunals. Carlisle v. UnitedSearch
-
Palermo v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 360 U. S. 343 , 353, n. 11 (1959) (citing Funk v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 290 U. S. 371 , 382 (1933), and Gordon v. UnitedSearch
-
legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. See, e. g., City of Boerne v. FloresSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial