The End of the Miranda Regime and the Need for State Interrogation Policy

Marvin Zalman, Wayne State University

A recent Yale Law Journal article (Steven Clymer, Dec. 2002) and a case before the U.S. Supreme Court (Chavez v. Martinez) presage the crumbling of the Miranda rule. Despite Dickerson v. U.S. (2000), which upheld Miranda's constituinality, Clymer's article and the likely result of Chavez will likely produce a rule that the failure to administer Miranda warnings and abuse interrogation are not inherent constitutional violations, but only require exclusion of incriminating statements at trial. In ordinary cases the new rule will probably not result in radical changes in police interrogation practices. Nevertheless, agencies may deliverately engage in abusive interrogation in terrorism cases and situations where information outweighs the value of prosecution. Local and federal agencies, cities and states should establish guidelines to control abusive interrogation. state courts should offer greater controls under state constitutional protections. Guidelines will be proposed.

(Return to Program Resources)

Updated 05/20/2006