1. Why did the Fourth Circuit believe the warnings could be dispensed with in Dickerson’s case?
2. The Court’s opinion defended the Miranda warnings requirement on legal grounds, but it went beyond such arguments to advance practical and cultural reasons for not abandoning Miranda warnings at this time. What were these arguments?

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court
Petitioner Dickerson was indicted for bank robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery, and using a firearm in the course of committing a crime of violence, all in violation of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code. Before trial, Dickerson moved to suppress a statement he had made at a Federal Bureau of Investigation field office, on the grounds that he had not received ”Miranda warnings” before being interrogated. The District Court granted his motion to suppress, and the Government took an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. That court, by a divided vote, reversed the District Court’s suppression order.