 |
| | | | | American Constitutional Law, Volume One
Gregg Ivers, American University
| | |
| | | |
Alternate Case Selections
Chapter Three: Judicial Power
Dickerson v. United States (2000)
Please read the introduction below, and then review the case.
On January 24, 1997, Charles Dickerson waited impatiently in his car outside the First Virginia Bank in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia, located just across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. Inside, his partner was holding up the bank. As alarm bells rang, Jimmy Rochester, the "inside man" on the job, raced outside and jumped in Dickerson’s car, and the two robbers drove away. A few blocks later, Dickerson stopped the car, Rochester got out and put the leather bag he had used in the robbery in the trunk and got right back in the car. The total take from the heist was $876.
An eyewitness had given police investigating the robbery the license plate of a white Oldsmobile Ciera that had been parked in front of the bank that morning. The FBI traced the car’s registration to Dickerson, who lived in Takoma Park, a Maryland suburb that borders Washington, D.C. Ten FBI agents and an Alexandria police detective arrived at Dickerson’s apartment on the morning of January 27 to question him. After a short conversation, Dickerson, who denied taking part in the robbery, agreed to accompany the police to an FBI field office for further questioning. As Dickerson went to his bedroom to retrieve his coat, the FBI agent following him noticed a large amount of cash sitting on his bed. When asked what he was doing with such a large amount of cash, Dickerson responded that he just returned from a successful gambling trip to Atlantic City, New Jersey.
Dickerson was not placed under arrest. After arriving at the FBI office, the agents requested and received permission for a telephone warrant to search Dickerson’s apartment. The judge agreed that the agents had established probable cause by matching the license plate and discovering the cash, and granted the warrant. After FBI agents informed Dickerson they would be returning to his apartment to conduct a search, Dickerson told them he wanted to make a statement. He confessed to driving the get away car in the Alexandria robbery, and taking part in 18 previous bank robberies in Virginia, Maryland and Georgia. Dickerson was then placed under arrest and read his Miranda rights.
A federal trial judge threw out Dickerson’s confession, ruling that the FBI’s failure to read the suspect his Miranda rights prior to his confession made any subsequent statements inadmissible. A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals then reversed, claiming that under Section 3501 of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 the admissibility of a confession was based solely on whether it was voluntary. The Department of Justice had not argued to apply Section 3501, believing that it was unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit opinion was very critical of the Justice Department’s position, claiming it was motivated by "politics over law." In truth, seven presidential administrations had come and gone since Miranda was decided, and not one, including the Reagan administration, had ever invoked Section 3501 to challenge the 1966 decision. Only the Washington Legal Foundation, in its amicus brief, urged the appeals court to bypass Miranda by relying on Section 3501.
After the Supreme Court agreed to hear Dickerson’s appeal, Attorney General Janet Reno stated that the Justice Department would not defend the Fourth Circuit’s decision. The Court appointed Paul Cassell, a law professor and outspoken critic of Miranda, to represent the United States against Dickerson’s appeal. Cassell, who had served as a law clerk for Justice Scalia before he was appointed to the Court in 1986, had helped to write the Washington Legal Foundation’s brief submitted to the Fourth Circuit. Several law enforcement groups lined up behind Cassell’s brief, urging the Court to uphold the Fourth Circuit’s application of Section 3501. Not a single group, however, supported Cassell’s position to overturn Miranda outright.
The Court’s decision was 7 to 2. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented.
Go to the case.
| | | |
| |
|
