confession. Because the lower court already had found Dickerson’s confession to be voluntary, the Fourth Circuit reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to finally decide the issue.

The Decision
     The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion on Dickerson on June 26, 2000. In a 7-2 decision, the court held that Miranda is a Constitutional decision and, therefore, could not be overruled by an Act of Congress.²³ The Court not only affirmed Miranda but also declared it a Constitutional rule.²⁴ Aside from elaborating in great detail as to why its finding that Miranda is Constitutionally required was consistent with its original decision and its progeny, the Court gave two other noteworthy justifications. The Court found that “Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.”²⁵ The Court also said “...experience suggests that the totality-of-the-circumstances test which § 3501 seeks to revive is more difficult than Miranda for law enforcement officers to conform to, and for courts to apply in a consistent manner.”²⁶ Thus, 32 years after enactment, § 3501 has been ruled unconstitutional, and the precustodial interrogation requirements of Miranda have been given “a permanent place in our jurisprudence.”²⁷

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: CIVIL LIABILITY
     The Supreme Court’s decision in Dickerson was both a surprise and a disappointment to many.²⁸ The decision clearly elevates the warning requirements of Miranda to Constitutional proportions; the single most significant practical impact of which is potential civil liability of individual law enforcement officers and their departments resulting from intentional violations of the warning requirements mandated in Miranda.

“ ...the Court held that Miranda is a Constitutional decision and, therefore, could not be overruled by an Act of Congress. "

     Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983²⁹ (hereafter §1983) provides a federal remedy for deprivations of federal Constitutional rights by authorizing suits against public officials and government entities.³⁰ To recover under § 1983, a civil rights plaintiff must prove two elements: 1) intentional deprivation of a federally protected right “secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States,” and 2) state action under color of law.³¹ Section 1983 was applied to federal law enforcement agencies in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents.³² A host of individual state causes of action mirror §1983 suits that can result in liability to the department and personal liability to the individual officer.
     Section 1983 requires intentional conduct or gross negligence by the government employee. Mere negligence is not actionable under §1983.³³ For example, if an interrogator were to negligently give defective warnings, this would not result in §1983 liability.
     In addition to the individual officer being exposed to §1983 liability, the agency or department also can be sued for Constitutional violations arising from official policy or other customs or practices of the entity.³⁴ Inadequate training also may be the basis for liability if the failure to train amounts to a deliberate indifference to rights of persons with whom police come in contact.³⁵
     Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dickerson, the clear majority view among the federal circuits was that no cause of action for money damages existed under §1983 where police officers allegedly violated Miranda principles by either failing to give Miranda warnings or by continuing to question a defendant in custody after his request for an attorney.³⁶ The rationale prior to Dickerson was that the U.S. Constitution did not guarantee the right to Miranda warnings. Dickerson only can be read to have changed this and to have created the requisite Constitutional right that satisfies the previously void §1983 element. While the Court in Dickerson did not expressly address the issue of civil liability and may at some future time limit §1983 liability exposure in the Miranda context, the only prudent course for law enforcement officers today is to proceed assuming that this §1983 cause of action is now viable.