<P> Miranda survived a strong challenge in Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), where the validity of Congress's overruling of Miranda through § 3501 was tested . At issue was whether the Miranda warnings were actually compelled by the Constitution, or were rather merely measures enacted as a matter of judicial policy . In Dickerson, the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Rehnquist, upheld Miranda 7--2 and stated that "the warnings have become part of our national culture". In dissent, Justice Scalia argued Miranda warnings were not constitutionally required . He cited several cases demonstrating a majority of the then - current court, counting himself, and Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, and Thomas, as well as the Chief Justice (who had just delivered a contrary opinion), "(were) on record as believing that a violation of Miranda is not a violation of the Constitution". </P> <P> Over time, interrogators began to think of techniques to honor the "letter" but not the "spirit" of Miranda . In the case of Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), the Supreme Court halted one of the more controversial practices . Missouri police were deliberately withholding Miranda warnings and questioning suspects until they obtained confessions, then giving the warnings, getting waivers, and getting confessions again . Justice Souter wrote for the plurality: "Strategists dedicated to draining the substance out of Miranda cannot accomplish by training instructions what Dickerson held Congress could not do by statute ." </P> <P> Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) is a ruling where the Supreme Court held that a suspect's "ambiguous or equivocal" statement or no statements do not mean that police must end an interrogation . At least one scholar has argued that Thompkins effectively gutted Miranda . In The Right to Remain Silent, Charles Weisselberg wrote that "the majority in Thompkins rejected the fundamental underpinnings of Miranda v. Arizona's prophylactic rule and established a new one that fails to protect the rights of suspects" and that </P> <P> But in Thompkins, neither Michigan nor the Solicitor General were able to cite any decision in which a court found that a suspect had given an implied waiver after lengthy questioning . Thompkins persevered for almost three hours before succumbing to his interrogators . In finding a waiver on these facts, Thompkins gives us an implied waiver doctrine on steroids . </P>

Who filed a 1966 supreme court case because he was arrested