Klein, Susan R.
March 2001
Michigan Law Review;Mar2001, Vol. 99 Issue 5, p1030
Academic Journal
Answers the conundrum of the Miranda versus Arizona case decision to justify other similar cases. Definition of the terms constitutional prophylactic rule, constitutional safe harbor rule and constitutional incidental right; Suggestion on the benefits of defining constitutional terms; Examination on the ruling made by Chief Justice Rehnquist on the Dickerson versus United States case.


Related Articles

  • THE PATHS NOT TAKEN THE SUPREME COURT'S FAILURES IN DICKERSON. Cassell, Paul G. // Michigan Law Review;Mar2001, Vol. 99 Issue 5, p898 

    Argues on the decision of the Supreme Court on the Dickerson versus United States case. Description of a different path that the Court should have considered; How the Court's assertion of its power to promulgate the Miranda versus Arizona case conflicted with the decision in City of Boerne...

  • Should the Supreme Court Dump the Miranda Rules? Taylor Jr., Stuart // National Journal;10/23/99, Vol. 31 Issue 43, p3031 

    Deals with the United States (US) issue on the Miranda rules or the rights of crime suspects which emanated from the decision in the 1966 Supreme Court case, Miranda versus Arizona. Evidence of the rules' popularity; Criticisms on the rules; Argument of Justice Byron R. White on the rules;...

  • FOREWORD: FROM MIRANDA TO...3501 TO DICKERSON TO... Kamisar, Yale // Michigan Law Review;Mar2001, Vol. 99 Issue 5, p879 

    Discusses the implication of the Section 3501 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 in the United States for Miranda versus Arizona case. Overview of Section 3501 of the act; Constitutional status of Miranda; Reason to believe the overturning Miranda would have caused a good...

  • MIRANDA'S MISTAKE. Stuntz, William J. // Michigan Law Review;Mar2001, Vol. 99 Issue 5, p975 

    Discusses the mistakes in the Miranda versus Arizona case. Description of the regulatory problem that the doctrine was designed for to solve; Explanation on why the solution to the regulatory problem has unraveled; Distributive consequences of the unraveling.

  • THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION TO MIRANDA AND THE \VAR ON TERROR: DESPERATE TIMES Do NOT ALWAYS CALL FOR DESPERATE MEASURES. Hartmann, David T. // George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal;Spring2012, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p219 

    The article focuses on the Miranda Rights of the U.S., which is an exception to public safety, and discusses the war on terror led by the U.S. President Barack Obama. It provides information on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in two cases Miranda v. Arizona and Dickerson v. United States. The...

  • MIRANDA, DICKERSON, AND THE PUZZLING PERSISTENCE OF FIFTH AMENDMENT EXCEPTIONALISM. Schulhofer, Stephen J. // Michigan Law Review;Mar2001, Vol. 99 Issue 5, p941 

    Evaluates the constitutional dimensions on the safeguards of the Miranda versus Arizona lawsuit. Discussion on which restrictions on police interrogation are amended by ordinary Fifth Amendment principles of the United States Constitution; Ways to supplement the Miranda regime to conform it...

  • MIRANDA, THE CONSTITUTION, AND CONGRESS. Strauss, David A. // Michigan Law Review;Mar2001, Vol. 99 Issue 5, p958 

    Argues that it is misleading to ask whether the warnings in the Miranda versus Arizona case are required by the United States Constitution. Provision of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; Role of Congress in the development of constitutional principles; Comparison of the case with the...

  • QUESTIONING THE RELEVANCE OF MIRANDA IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. Leo, Richard A. // Michigan Law Review;Mar2001, Vol. 99 Issue 5, p1000 

    Questions the assumptions about the effects of the Miranda versus Arizona case. Review of generations of studies assessing Miranda's impact; Analysis of the probable impact on the officials of the criminal justice system in the 21st century; Importance of video taping of police interrogations...

  • Interrogating Juveniles.  // Supreme Court Debates;Apr2004, Vol. 7 Issue 4, p97 

    The U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Miranda v. Arizona case, held that, prior to questioning a suspect in police custody, law enforcement officers must inform the suspect and ensure that he understands, that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says can and will be used...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics