a confession and took into account “the totality of all the surrounding circumstances—both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.”¹⁴ The rule governing the admissibility of confessions in federal court remained the same for nearly 180 years: confessions were admissible at trial if made voluntarily.

Special Agent Petrowiski is a legal instructor at the FBI Academy.

"The Dickerson decision did not alter the requirements Miranda placed on law enforcement."

THE MIRANDA DECISION

A New Approach
     In 1966, the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona. In what is arguably its most controversial criminal law decision,¹⁵ the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, changed the focus of the inquiry to determine the admissibility of suspects’ incriminating statements by announcing a new approach. Specifically, the Court made the case-by-case totality-of-the-circumstances voluntariness analysis a supplementary consideration and identified a new primary focus. The Court held that any statement arising from the custodial interrogation of a suspect is presumed involuntary and, therefore, inadmissible unless the police first provide the suspect with four specific warnings.¹⁶ The four warnings are—¹⁷
      1) that the suspect has the right to remain silent;
      2) that any statements he makes can be used against him;
      3) that he has the right to the presence of an attorney during questioning; and
      4) that an attorney will be appointed for him if he cannot afford one.
     The Court did not eliminate the voluntariness inquiry. Consequently, an incriminating statement may be prefaced by Miranda warnings but still be involuntary, which may result in suppression of the statement. That is, a law enforcement interrogator cannot physically threaten or otherwise inappropriately coerce a confession simply because the warnings have been given and waived. Likewise, a clearly voluntary statement that was not prefaced by complete Miranda warnings also may result in suppression. For a statement to be admissible under Miranda, it has to be both voluntary and prefaced by complete Miranda warnings, which are intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waived. The Court also has held that once individuals invoke their right to counsel, officers immediately must cease interrogation until counsel is present or the suspects initiate further contact and unequivocally communicate the desire to proceed without counsel.¹⁸

Passage of 18 U.S.C. § 3501.
     In Miranda, the Court said that “[w]e encourage Congress and the States to continue their laudable search for increasingly effective ways of protecting the rights of the individual while promoting efficient enforcement of our criminal laws. However, unless we are shown other procedures which are at least as effective in appraising accused persons of their right of silence and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the...safeguards must be observed.”¹⁹
     In 1968, 2 years after Miranda was decided, Congress accepted the Court’s invitation to show “other procedures” and enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3501²⁰ (hereafter § 3501). Through § 3501, Congress attempted to overrule Miranda and reinstate the voluntariness test as the sole determinant for admissibility of confessions in federal court. The statute explicitly abandoned the requirement of pre-interrogation warnings in favor of an approach that considers such warnings only one factor in determining