- In this subsection, Harlan references a variety of past court cases where voluntary confessions were totally acceptable.
- He goes on to say that there are some exceptions to the whole "voluntary" thing—threats of danger, lack of food or sleep, limits on access to counsel or friends, and length of imprisonment, to name a few.
- Next Harlan says that there are a few relevant lessons from history. The first is that the Supreme Court has taken a "one case at a time" approach, meaning that there have been a variety of outcomes that might not seem consistent. Harlan is being a little snarky here.
- His second main point is that the Supreme Court is too much on the side of the people, as opposed to the police.
- His third and last point is that the word "voluntary" is too vague. It's very difficult for the courts to know what exactly was voluntary, and what might have had a bit of police pressure behind it.
- A major argument from Harlan is that Fifth Amendment rights do not necessarily exist in police stations.
- He believes that applying those rights in custody makes it more difficult for the police to do their job. In addition, he says that the Fifth Amendment should allow for mild pressure, but not extreme pressure by the police (like torture).
- Lastly, Harlan ends this subsection by saying that having a lawyer present during questioning "may become an obstacle to truth finding" (HarlanDissent.II.16).