The suspect’s constitutional rights were violated when the officer that detained him did not read him his Miranda Warnings. The case of Miranda Vs Arizona 1966, ruled on by the supreme court established that when arrested an individual must be read their constitutional rights as prescribed in Amendments 4 and 5. By requiring that a Miranda Warning be issued to a suspect the Court entered the process of informing a suspect to their rights in to the details of Due Process.

“No person… …Shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law…”

As stated in the 5^th amendment a person may not be compelled to testify against or be a witness against themselves, or be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. The suspect was not read his constitutional rights upon being detained and interrogated and was thusly had his right to due process of the law violated.

In continuation, the suspect was compelled to give witness against himself be the officer interrogating him. By interrogating the suspect, the officer was compelling him to bear witness against himself and others. The process of interrogating a person is made up of posing a series of questions and compelling the one being interrogated to answer them, be it against himself or others. Even if his confession was given voluntarily, as stipulated in §3501 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the confession would be given as a result of being compelled to give a statement.

§3501 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 maybe also be considered unconstitutional on the grounds that it reverses a decision made by the Supreme Court in Miranda Vs Arizona, that state that a suspect must be given a Miranda Warning. The Act passed by congress states that a confession may be used as long as it was given voluntarily, without the issuing of a Miranda Warning. If indeed the decision of the court infused he reading of Miranda Rights in the procedure of Due Process than the defendant had his right to Due Process violated by the officers that detained him.

The question also arises of whether or not it is within Congress’s power to overturn a decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is empowered to review laws made by congress for constitutionality and to specify that which the constitution means on certain matters. This power of “Judicial Review” was established and confirmed with the case Marbury vs. Madison (1803). This being true, when the Supreme Court required the issuing of Miranda Warnings, it was saying that the constitution required that suspects know their rights under the 4^th and 5^th Amendments and be informed of them. It is not within Congress’s power to enact any law that violates the Constitution of the United States of America, being that, the Constitution is the highest law of the land. “This constitution and Law of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the Supreme law of the land…” Article IV Clause 2. The member of Congress are also bound by their Oath of Office to protect and follow the Constitution of the United States. “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned… shall be bound by an Oath or Affirmation, to support this constitution…” Articles IV Clause 3.