The controversial Miranda rule requires law enforcement officers to inform criminal suspects of their right to have legal counsel and of their right against self-incrimination. Since the rule was established by the Supreme Court in the 1966 case Miranda v. Arizona, most incriminating statements made by suspects who had not been properly informed of their rights have been deemed inadmissible at trial. The rule recently came under scrutiny when the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals, in Richmond, Va., ruled that a largely ignored 1968 federal law allowing "voluntary" confessions as evidence must take precedence over the requirement that a suspect be informed of his or her Miranda rights.

On April 20, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, U.S. v. Charles Dickerson. After being arrested for a series of bank robberies by the FBI, Dickerson made several self-incriminating statements while in custody. Yet the defendant claims that the authorities never gave him his Miranda rights.

On Monday, June 26, in a seven to two ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional basis behind Miranda Rights, thus requiring police and other law enforcement agents to continue administering them to individuals when being taken into custody. Writing for the court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist stated, "Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively".

On One Hand...

The Miranda rule complicates law enforcement procedures and results in fewer prosecutions. Dropping it would streamline prosecutions and save millions of dollars in court costs. After Miranda was first adopted, the number of voluntary confessions fell dramatically, as did the rate of convictions and crimes solved. The Miranda rule was intended only as a safeguard for constitutional rights - not as an arrest procedure.

On the Other Hand...

The Miranda rule protects suspects from abusive tactics during arrests and interrogations by guaranteeing that defendants know their legal rights. It also streamlines the legal process by providing law officers with a way to remind suspects of their rights. Without Miranda, courts would need to evaluate each arrest process in order to make sure that no illegal coercion takes place. Reading a suspect's rights protects both the law officer and the suspect from wrongful prosecution.

• Law enforcement officials are required to warn suspects of the following Miranda Rights:

  • You have the right to remain silent.

  • Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

  • You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you during questioning.

  • If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you if you wish.

• In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that Ernesto Miranda's confession in a rape case could not be used against him because police did not tell him his constitutional rights. Miranda confessed to the crime after being interrogated. He was then convicted and sentenced to 20 years prison.

• The case was appealed to the Supreme Court whose ruling specified new requirements for law enforcement when suspects are questioned. Miranda was re-tried and later convicted based on the testimony of a former girlfriend he had confessed to.

• Police initially opposed Miranda, but it soon became universally recognized.

• Data from studies before and after the Miranda ruling show the percentage of confessions dropped approximately 16 percent.

• The National Center for Policy Analysis estimates that without Miranda between 8,000 and 36,000 more robberies would have been solved in 1995.

NCPA, U.S. Supreme Court, ACLU, Department of Justice