- The "nub of this dissent" as White puts it is that there's nothing wrong or unconstitutional with the police asking questions of suspects even if the suspect knows his right to remain silent.
- In addition, White says that confessions have always been a very important piece of evidence in a trial, and there's nothing to suggest that "the process of confessing is injurious to the accused." (WhiteDissent.IV.2)
- White next points out that the new rule—the Miranda Warning—will "weaken the ability of the criminal law" to do their job, and that many criminals will go free instead of being put behind bars. Sound familiar? These guys like to repeat themselves.
- But he then points out new and rather fresh perspective—the perspective of the innocent suspect. White claims that the Miranda Warning means this innocent guy now has to go through the process of getting a lawyer, which delays his release. Ugh, due process is so annoying.
- White wraps up his dissent by giving his opinion on the four cases involved. Just like Harlan, he'd affirm the decisions in Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, and Westover v. United States; and he'd reverse California v. Stewart.