Dickerson, Charles v. U.S.

 

99-5525

 

Appealed From: 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (166 F.3d 667)

 

Question(s) Presented: Whether Miranda is constitutional and therefore 18 USC section 3501 is an unconstitutional act that does not prevent and protect you from self incrimination. 

 

Charles Thomas Dickerson confessed to robbing a series of banks in Maryland on January 27, 1997, three days after the crime occurred.  A witness to the robbery at the First Virginia Bank in Alexandria, V.A. caught the license plate number and subsequently 10 FBI agents and an Alexandria police detective then confronted Dickerson at his apartment on January 27th. 1 

Down at the police station Dickerson first told the police that he had driven his car to that city near the First Virginia Bank because he was there looking at a restaurant.  Dickerson still not under arrest was then told that the FBI had obtained a warrant to search his apartment.  Shortly after Dickerson confessed to robbing a series of banks in Maryland and Virginia.  The time in which Dickerson gave this statement to the FBI is in dispute.  This statement resulted in a federal grand jury indicted him on one court of conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 1 U.S.C.A. 371 (West Supp. 1998), three counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 2113(a) & (d) (West Supp. 1998), and three counts of using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 924(c)(1) (West Supp. 1998). 1

Dickerson was never formally placed under arrest until after he had already confessed to the robbery.  This means he was never read his Miranda rights and therefore his statement was void.  The statement was obtained in technical violation of Miranda, which entitles you to protective safeguards from police interrogation.  Miranda v. Arizona, the 1966 Supreme Court case in which Miranda rights were established to help the criminally accused.  Suspects must be warned “he has the right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." 2

 The dispute over the time Dickerson gave his statement was argued by Dickerson, FBI agent and a detective.  Both the FBI agent and the detective said Dickerson was read his Miranda rights before giving the statement, and voluntarily chose to waive those rights.  However Dickerson said he was not read his Miranda rights until his statement and resulting arrest.  His statement only admitted to him being the getaway driver in the series of bank robberies.  1

Charles Dickerson then decided to file a motion to suppress his statement and the evidence that was found in his apartment prior to his arrest.  The times recorded on the warrant (issued at 8:50 PM) and on the wavier (executed at 9:41 PM) show that he had not been read his Miranda rights or signed the wavier until after he had made the statement.  With this information the district court ruled in favor of Dickerson.  In turn, the U.S. appealed the decision, arguing that since the statements were voluntary; they were admissible under Section 3501 of the U.S.C.  Section 3501 says that in any criminal prosecution, “a confession shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given.” 3 The motion filed by Dickerson was denied and the courts never considered Section 3501 that was brought up by the government in their defense.

Rightly deciding whether a confession is voluntary or not, many considerations have to be made.  Dickerson's statement as given to the FBI and the circumstances surrounding it had to be evaluated and understood.  Dickerson may not have known that he could keep silent, or whether he had a right to counsel before speaking to the FBI about the situation.  Dickerson may not have realized either the nature of the offense he was being questioned about.  The warrant and the signed waiver had an elapsed time between them and this had to be considered also.  Section 3501 does not protect a suspect from the interrogation of the police or provide them with their inalienable rights as citizens in criminal proceedings.  

The government then filed a motion to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals but did not bring up Section 3501 because the Department of Justice prohibited them from doing so.  Professor Paul Cassell of the University of Utah College of Law, arguing for Section 3501 filed a friend of the court brief. 1 The court reversed the decision holding that "Congress enacted Section 3501 with the express purpose of legislatively overruling Miranda and restoring voluntariness as the test for admitting confessions in federal court." 1 Finding that Dickerson's statement was admissible under Section 3501 although there was an absence of the Miranda warnings. 

Now the case is before the Supreme Court.  An appeal on behalf of Charles Thomas Dickerson, the Petitioner v. The United States of America, arguing that 18 U.S.C. Section 3501 is unconstitutional and can not be used to admit Dickerson's statement into evidence.  The history behind this case is very important in helping decide whether Dickerson's statement should be admissible in court. 

            Up until the late eighteenth century there was no rule, that would exclude coerced confessions from trial.  The rule developed early on in England and through time made its way to the United States.  The Common Law Rule as it is known, was stressed by the Courts for the first time to mean that while a "voluntary confession of guilt is among the most effectual proofs in the law, from the very nature of such evidence it must be subjected to careful scrutiny and received with great caution." 4    In a landmark case, Bram v. United States, that broadened the common law standard for judging admissibility. 5 Although it was not until the case United States v. Carignan in 1951 when courts doubted "whether involuntary confessions are excluded from federal criminal trial on the ground of a violation of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, or from a rule that forced confessions are untrustworthy…." 6   One of the main reasons Courts exclude involuntary confessions from trial is because they are untrustworthy and unreliable. 7   These confessions are sometimes involuntary because a defendant is unaware of their rights, even if they are not in custody.

            In Miranda v. Arizona, 2 the court made the biggest decision yet in the subject of self-incrimination.  "The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial [law enforcement] interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self incrimination." 2   The Fifth Amendment is part of the United States Constitution and through this amendment we are protected from hurting our innocence or guilt.  Without this amendment, the police would have more power, be more coercive, and more harmful to us.  More innocent people would be sitting in prison if we were not protected by this amendment.

            Since the Courts ruling in Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 they have continued to practice their decision.  Even though Congress did enact a statute in 1968 known as "3501," this was suppose to set aside Miranda in the federal courts.  The statute has been undercover for some time now, with very little use since 1968.  Many believe that it is an unconstitutional act that allows innocent people to self-incriminate themselves without their knowing.  The years 1969 through 1992 provided the 3501 statute with good favor.  In the case of U.S. v. Crocker the Tenth Circuit court affirmed the districts courts decision to apply the provisions of 3501 rather than the Miranda Act.  Also in the civil rights case of U.S. v. Goudreu, in which police brutality was in question.  Civil Rights argued, “Under the terms of 18 U.S.C. 3501, the defendants statement is admissible evidence regardless of whether Miranda warning were required because the statement was voluntarily made.”8   In the courts decision, statute 3501 was not even cited, they found that the federal agents had complied with the requirements of Miranda.

            When the Clinton Administration took over in 1992, it seems that the people in favor of 3501 had disappeared.  Although it also looked in the beginning the Clinton Administration was dodging the “3501” bullet.  The case of U.S. v. Cheely, when the Clinton Justice Department was asked questions about statue 3501, they simply dodged the questions, not answering them they way they should. 9   They were uncertain of what the correct opinion was for the Clinton Administration.  Unsure of what the publics reaction would be if they were against Section 3501, because they thought it was unconstitutional in eyes of the Miranda rights, a statue that was established before Section 3501 was even conceived. 

            In 1993, a case came before the Supreme Court, Davis v. U.S., that would help define their role and opinion of 18 U.S.C. Section 3501.  Davis attempted to suppress an incriminating statement through a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals.  There was no claim that Davis’ statement was involuntary, only that the “prophylactic” rules of Miranda somehow required the statement implicating Davis in a murder be suppressed. 10 During the trial the Court asked the Solicitor General Office why they disliked the statute and they simply replied, “We don’t take a position on that issue.” 10

There has to be some type of problem with an issue such as this if so many official people have problems with deciding whether Section 3501 is constitutional.  In these more recent cases you can see how important our Miranda rights are, Miranda v. Arizona continues to be one of the most critical court cases in our history.  Without our Miranda rights, the police would be given too much control over our lives and the situations that put us in contact with authority.  Miranda rights void out 18 U.S.C. Section 3501; Congress should not have even considered this statute.  This statute handcuffs the defendant more than need be, giving authority more control over situations that are fragile and very important.  By using Section 3501, you overstep the Supreme Court, which is a legal institution to its core, and by doing this we lose our most important decision makers and their opinions.  Miranda rights were placed in our Constitution for a specific reason, to protect ourselves from police interrogation and make sure we do not incriminate ourselves.  Having a statute that oversteps these important rights does not help us in the fight to keep our freedom.