1 Answer | Add Yours
Because the decision in Dickerson is really about Miranda warnings, it has nothing more than very tangential implications for the exclusionary rule. It impacts the exclusionary rule only in that it upholds the rule that statements made without uspects being informed of their Miranda rights must generally be excluded from use in trials.
The decision in Dickerson was solely about whether Congress could pass a law overruling Miranda. The case rested on the issue of whether Miranda was a constitutional rule. The majority of the Court held that Miranda was a rule based on the Constitution, not on other grounds, and could therefore not be overruled by Congress.
This ruling has nothing to do with the validity of the exclusionary rule as a concept. Instead, it has to do with which statements should be excluded. It does not rule on whether evidence gotten illegally should be excluded. Rather is simply clarifies what sorts of evidence (in this case, statements from un-Mirandized suspects) are illegal.
We’ve answered 319,414 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question