Miranda Revisted: Dickerson v. United States - Essay Example

The author provides the factors under which the confession is considered to be voluntary. The section of passage 3501 is used to protect the rights of convicts, however, despite this passage, the law enforcement agencies followed the ruling in Miranda. On page 27 the author summarizes the details of the Dickerson case: Dickerson was aware of the rights granted to him by the Miranda ruling and has waived them in the written form. However, as the investigation went further, he has notified that has confessed before he received the Miranda warning.

The major point was not that the confession was voluntary, but whether it was in fact given before Miranda warning. As the result, the case was transferred to US Supreme Court. "The Court not only affirmed Miranda but also declared it a Constitutional rule" (Petrowski 28). The next section is headed "Practical implication: Civil liability" in which the author investigates the "potential civil liability of individual law enforcement officers and their departments resulting from intentional violations of the warning requirements mandated in Miranda" (Petrowski 28).

The major point of this section is that "prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Dickerson, the clear majority view among the federal circuits was that no cause of action for money damages existed under 1983 where police officers allegedly violated Miranda principles by either failing to give Miranda warnings or by continuing to question a defendant in custody after his request for an attorney" (Petrowski 28). The section "Practical Guidance" is an overview of what the law enforcement agencies and officers should do in order to prevent the violation of Miranda warning right.

For example, the practice of interrogation before the warning was given. The author notes that sometimes the law enforcement officers can "over-Mirandize" - "tendency to repeatedly or unnecessarily give Miranda warnings" (Petrowski 29). Petrowski notes that there is a need to train the law enforcement agencies and to create sound policies to minimize the risk of Miranda violation. The conclusion is basically the summary of the whole report with the major points highlighted. I think that the Dickerson decision has not changed the existing practices too much, for example, it has not created new requirements for law enforcement officers.

However, it is vital that the Supreme Court has reminded both suspects and law enforcement agencies that the person cannot be forced to confess against himself if he does not want to. Of course, it is constitutionally right to give the suspect a Miranda warning; however, it adds more work to law enforcement officers in trying to prove the guilt of the suspect. My opinion is that if the suspect is cooperative and does not try to hide his guilt, Miranda warning should not be obligatory. Dickerson's case has made Miranda warning a constitutional right of each suspect but seems that law enforcement officers are forced to overuse it.

Even though nothing is said about the need to repeat the warning several times, I believe that there will be more cases about this issue in the future. The author has made an important point that the "intentional violations of Miranda must cease" (Petrowski 30) and he is right. For example, if the suspect was forced to confess because the officer has told that he has no other choice, it is evident that the rights were violated.