Does a Failure to Give Miranda Warnings Require Suppression of Physical Evidence Derived from Statements Given to Police?
United States v. Patane Docket No. 02-1183 From: The Tenth Circuit Case at a Glance In 2000, the Supreme Court, in Dickerson v. United States, held that the rule of Miranda v. Arizona was required by the Fifth Amendment. Previous decisions had referred to Miranda as merely a prophylactic rule designed to safeguard the interests protected by the Fifth Amendment, but not actually required by the Constitution. Here, the Court is asked to decide whether Dickerson had overruled the earlier cases and, therefore, that a gun found as a result of a Miranda violation must be suppressed. • Previewed by Alan Raphael, an associate professor of law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law in Chicago, Illinois.
