Which case held that the Miranda warnings are a constitutional requirement that cannot be waived by the suspect?

• A. Kent v. United States (1966)
• B. Dickerson v. United States (2000)
• C. Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
• D. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Answer: (B)

The central idea being tested is that Miranda warnings are a constitutional requirement that cannot be overridden by legislation. In Dickerson v. United States (2000), the Supreme Court reaffirmed Miranda, holding that the warnings themselves are a constitutional rule grounded in the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination and the right to counsel during custodial interrogation. The Court rejected the notion that Congress could overturn this requirement with ordinary statute, making clear that police must provide the warnings and obtain a knowing, voluntary waiver if the suspect chooses to speak. Statements obtained without proper warnings or a valid waiver are generally not admissible as evidence. The other listed cases address different issues—juvenile rights, campaign finance, and federal power—and do not address the constitutional status of the Miranda warnings.