In Butts v. McNally (previously known as California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts), the ACLU/SC filed suit on behalf of two suspects, one held by the LAPD and the other by the Santa Monica Police Department, who were questioned after repeatedly requesting to speak to an attorney. The ACLU argued that officers in these departments routinely ignored suspectsâ requests for counsel, a practice known as questioning "outside Miranda." In addition to reinforcing the constitutional significance of Miranda, the Ninth Circuit held that officers are not immune from civil suit if they conduct custodial interrogation of suspects even after they have invoked their rights. The ACLU applauded the Supreme Courtâs decision to deny certiorari to the two cities who sought to have the case reviewed by the high court. The case returns to the district court to resolve the issue of the officersâ individual liability.

The officers had falsely assured the men that their statements would not be used in court. In fact, these statements could and were used to impeach the defendantsâ testimony at trial. "When a suspect invokes his or her right to remain silent," explained legal director Mark Rosenbaum, "police must remain silent too, and are prohibited from using coercive tactics to extract confessions."

In the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Dickerson v. United States, the court involved a long overlooked Nixon-supported law and boldly insisted that Miranda was never constitutionally mandated. The court, in a strong 7-2 decision, upheld the Miranda ruling by the Warren Court, and rejected the lower courtâs use of a 1968 Congressional anti-crime statute that legislatively overruled the decision. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority and held Miranda warnings are constitutionally mandated and cannot be overturned by the legislature. As a result, police officers must continue to inform suspects of their rights.