Michigan v. Tucker: A Reevaluation of Miranda

In Michigan v. Tucker the Supreme Court considered whether to exclude the fruits of an interrogation that did not meet the precautionary standards of Miranda v. Arizona. The defendant contended that use of the evidence at his trial violated his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In deciding that the evidence had been properly admitted, the Tucker Court interpreted Miranda v. Arizona as outlining recommended procedural safeguards for the protection of fifth amendment rights and reasoned that omission of procedural safeguards does not necessarily constitute a violation of the underlying rights. Specifically, the Court concluded that a suspect who did not receive a complete Miranda warning prior to questioning could still make a voluntary statement to the police. This conclusion rejects the Miranda concept of voluntariness: that the accused must comprehend the information contained in Miranda warnings in order to make a truly voluntary statement.