To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Dickerson v. United States

Law Dictionary

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Font size

Criminal Procedure keyed to Saltzburg

Citation. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 120 S. Ct. 2326, 147 L. Ed. 2d 405, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 4305, 68 U.S.L.W. 4566, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5091, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 6789, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3855, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 488 (U.S. June 26, 2000)

Brief Fact Summary. The petitioner, Charles Thomas Dickerson (the “petitioner”), made a statement regarding a bank robbery to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) without receiving his Miranda rights. A federal law was in place that allowed the admission of statements if they were voluntarily made.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress cannot overrule the Miranda v. Arizona decision because it was a decision based on the United States Constitution (“Constitution”) rather than simply court-made law.

Facts. The petitioner made a statement at the FBI field office concerning a bank robbery wherein he was a suspect. The government agents did not notify the petitioner of his rights outlined in Miranda. The state relied on a federal law, 18 U.S.C. Section: 3501, that allowed the admission of statements as long as the suspect was making them voluntarily. The District Court suppressed the statement, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the “Fourth Circuit”) allowed the statements into evidence.

Issue. The issue is whether Congress can overrule the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional protections outlined in Miranda.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following