Killing Miranda Slowly

The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment was put into place to protect individual rights against self-incrimination. In 1966, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case, Miranda v. Arizona 2. When the Supreme Court decided Miranda, it was the aim of the Court to protect criminal defendants’ Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. It was the aim of the Court to protect individuals from making confessions coerced by the police. Overtime, the Court has adopted exceptions to Miranda making it legal for law enforcement to exclude Miranda when questioning a suspect. Those exceptions include the following: (1) public safety exception; (2) traffic stops; and (3) undercover agents or confidential informants. These exceptions give law enforcement the authority to question a suspect without reading him his Miranda rights. Consequently, the Court is giving law enforcement the authority to disregard a right afforded by the Constitution. This article discusses one of those exceptions created by the United States Supreme Court. Part I of this case note will explore the historical development of the Self-Incrimination Clause. Part II will discuss the holding in Miranda v. Arizona and when it should be implied. Part III will also explore the Court’s designation of Miranda as a constitutional rule in Dickerson v. United States. Part IV discusses the development of the public-safety exception in Quarles. Finally, part V provides an analysis of the Court’s holding in New York v. Quarles and the constitutionality of the public-safety exception.