Search results
19 kwi 2000 · During questioning about a robbery he was connected to, Charles Dickerson made statements to authorities admitting that he was the getaway driver in a series of bank robberies. Dickerson was then placed under arrest. The timing of his statement is disputed.
Brief Fact Summary. The petitioner, Charles Thomas Dickerson (the “petitioner”), made a statement regarding a bank robbery to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) without receiving his Miranda rights. A federal law was in place that allowed the admission of statements if they were voluntarily made.
The District Court granted his motion to suppress, and the Government took an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. That court, by a divided vote, reversed the District Court's suppression order.
12 paź 1999 · United States v. Locke Are the State of Washington's maritime regulations on tanker design, equipment, reporting, and operating requirements pre-empted by federal law?
12 sty 1993 · Was the police officer who frisked Dickerson adhering to the Fourth Amendment when he formed the belief, through his sense of touch, that the lump in Dickerson's jacket pocket was cocaine? Argued Mar 3, 1993
27 kwi 2017 · Dickerson v. United States Case Brief. Statement of the Facts: The Supreme Court, in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), held that a person must be given certain warnings before his statements made during a custodial interrogation would be admissible as evidence against him.
Dickerson was indicted for bank robbery. At his trial, Dickerson tried to have a confession he had made in an FBI field office suppressed, because he had not been read his rights. A Circuit Court upheld the federal law allowing voluntary confessions, reasoning that informing suspects of Miranda rights was not a constitutional requirement. The ...
