October Term 2003 · Docket 02-1183
Does the Fifth Amendment bar physical evidence found after an unwarned confession?
Prosecutors seek to admit a gun found after an unwarned confession. The defendant argues the Fifth Amendment forbids this use.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Wichlens argued Miranda warnings are a constitutional requirement.
Mr. Dreeben argued Miranda is a rule matched to the problem of compulsion.
Mr. Dreeben stated the rule prevents self-incriminating statements obtained by compulsion.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-25
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether the Fifth Amendment bars physical evidence found after an unwarned confession. The government argues Miranda is a policy rule. The defendant argues it is a constitutional requirement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-29
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 9, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-25
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to admit the physical evidence.
The defendant wants the Court to exclude the physical evidence.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-29
What each side says
The government argues Miranda warnings are a matter of proving policy.
The defendant argues Miranda warnings are a constitutional requirement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-29
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-25
Why it matters
This dispute determines whether police can use physical evidence found after an unwarned confession. It defines the scope of Fifth Amendment protections during police interrogations.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-29
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-25
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-29
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.