Summary:
In a 2010 Boston University Law Review article, Amy Coney Barrett argued that the Miranda Doctrine was an example of SCOTUS’s ‘choice to overenforce a constitutional norm by developing prophylactic doctrines that go beyond constitutional meaning.’ Barrett claimed that Miranda rights went beyond what the Constitution intended, stating that she believed there was a gap between constitutional norms and the tests by which those norms were implemented (i.e. Miranda Rights).
Other legal experts disagreed. The requirement to give Miranda Warnings, according to former New York Appeals court Chief Justice Sol Wachtler, “established a universal standard, requiring people in police custody be read their rights before being questioned.” Wachtler stated that “to compromise the Miranda rule would be counterproductive and destructive to the kind of freedom we enjoy as Americans.”
“Miranda Warning,” Refers To The Constitutional Requirement That Once An Individual Is Detained By Police, There Are Certain Warnings A Police Officer Is Required To Give The Detainee. According to the Legal Information Institute, “‘Miranda warning’ refers to the constitutional requirement that once an individual is detained by the police, there are certain warnings a police officer is required to give to a detainee.” [Legal Information Institution – Cornell Law Institute, Accessed 9/26/20]
The Requirement To Give Miranda Rights Stemmed From The Supreme Court Decision In Miranda V. Arizona. According to the Legal Information Institute, “The requirement to give Miranda warnings came from the Supreme Court decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966). In Miranda, the Court held that a defendant cannot be questioned by police in the context of a custodial interrogation until the defendant is made aware of the right to remain silent, the right to consult with an attorney and have the attorney present during questioning, and the right to have an attorney appointed if indigent.” [Legal Information Institution – Cornell Law Institute, Accessed 9/26/20]
Barrett Argued The Miranda Doctrine Was An Example Of The Court’s “Choice To Overenforce A Constitutional Norm By Developing Prophylactic Doctrines That Go Beyond Constitutional Meaning.” According to 90 Boston University Law Review 109 -Substantive Canon and Faithful Agency, Amy Coney Barrett wrote, “Or, the gap may be the result of the court’s choice to overenforce a constitutional norm by developing prophylactic doctrines that go beyond constitutional meaning. 291 The Miranda doctrine, which inevitably excludes from evidence even some confessions freely given, is an example.292” [90 Boston University Law Review 109 -Substantive Canon and Faithful Agency, 1/2010]
Barrett Believed There Was A Gap Between The Meaning Of Constitutional Norms And The Tests By Which Those Norms Are Implemented. According to 90 Boston University Law Review 109 -Substantive Canon and Faithful Agency, Amy Coney Barrett wrote, “On this view of constitutional decisionmaking, there need be no ‘conceptual identity between constitutional mandates and judicial rulings;’ 287 rather, ‘a gap frequently, often necessarily, exists between the meaning of constitutional norms and the tests by which those norms are implemented.’ 288” [90 Boston University Law Review 109 -Substantive Canon and Faithful Agency, 1/2010]
Barrett: The Miranda Doctrine “Inevitably Excludes From Evidence Even Some Confessions Freely Given.” According to 90 Boston University Law Review 109 -Substantive Canon and Faithful Agency, Amy Coney Barrett wrote, “The Miranda doctrine, which inevitably excludes from evidence even some confessions freely given, is an example.292” [90 Boston University Law Review 109 -Substantive Canon and Faithful Agency, 1/2010]
In A Footnote, Barrett Wrote That Miranda Was “Widely Recognized To Be A Prophylactic Doctrine Not Because It Always Invalidates Action That Would Otherwise Be Constitutional, But Because It Sometimes, Perhaps Often, Captures Such Conduct.” According to 90 Boston University Law Review 109 -Substantive Canon and Faithful Agency, Amy Coney Barrett wrote, “For example, the ‘doubts’ version of the avoidance canon may sometimes avoid constitutional interpretations and sometimes avoid unconstitutional ones, thereby functioning as an overenforcing doctrine in some cases but not others. Miranda reflects the same overlap in the context of judicial review: it is widely recognized to be a prophylactic doctrine, not because it always invalidates action that would otherwise be constitutional, but because it sometimes, perhaps often, captures such conduct. 30” [90 Boston University Law Review 109 -Substantive Canon and Faithful Agency, 1/2010]
Barrett Wrote That The Dispute Over The Constitutional Status Of Miranda Warnings Was The Most Well-Known Example Of Overenforecement Of The Constitutional Structure. According to 90 Boston University Law Review 109 -Substantive Canon and Faithful Agency, Amy Coney Barrett wrote, “It is the tendency of constitutionally inspired canons to overenforce the Constitution that places them in greatest tension with the constitutional structure. In the context of judicial review, originalists - which most statutory textualists are - have emphatically rejected the proposition that federal courts may adopt doctrinal tests that overenforce the Constitution by imposing limits on state actors that go beyond those set by the document itself.310 The dispute over the constitutional status of Miranda warnings is the most well-known example.” [90 Boston University Law Review 109 -Substantive Canon and Faithful Agency, 1/2010]
Former Chief Justice At The New York Court Of Appeals Sol Wachtler: To Compromise The Miranda Rule Would Be Counterproductive And Destructive To The Kind of Freedom We Enjoy As Americans. According to a New York Times op-ed by Sol Wachtler, “The Miranda rule strikes a delicate balance, enabling us to protect a fundamental constitutional right without forcing the courts to allow the legitimacy of every confession to be proven before it is allowed into evidence. To compromise the rule would be counterproductive and destructive to the kind of freedom we enjoy as Americans — a freedom that terrorists would like nothing better than to destroy.” [Sol Wachtler Op-Ed – New York Times, 5/12/10]
Wachtler: The Miranda Decision Established A Universal Standard, Requiring People In Police Custody Be Read Their Rights Before Being Questioned. According to a New York Times op-ed by Sol Wachter, “The problem was trying to determine what counted as a coerced confession. Well into the 20th century, police officers would beat suspects, or keep defendants in isolation for days, to get a confession. The methods of police interrogation were so diverse, and the effects of isolation, intimidation and defendant ignorance so varied, that appellate courts found it difficult to determine afterward whether a confession had been truly voluntary. Finally, in 1966, the Miranda decision established a universal standard, requiring people in police custody to be read their rights before being questioned.” [Sol Wachtler Op-Ed – New York Times, 5/12/10]