of criminal defendants ..[and] a constitutional violation occurs only at trial”) (citations omitted). In 1966, in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Court held that a police officer must inform a suspect in custody of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney before interrogating him. 384 U.S. at 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602. The remedy for such a violation, however, was exclusion of the nn-Mirandized statement from trial, not an action for damages under § 1983. See Husband v. Turner, No. 07-CV-391-bbc, 2008 WL 2002737, at *4 (W.D.Wis. May 6, 2008) (collecting cases). Indeed, until recently, the Court has declined to acknowledge Miranda as establishing a constitutional right. See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 440, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 444, 94
holding that miranda was constitutionally based but declining to go further than miranda  to establish a constitutional right holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody holding on collateral review that miranda rule did not apply to confession because petitioner was tried before miranda decision holding miranda decision does not apply retroactively holding a defendant was not in custody for purposes of miranda after he consented to go to police headquarters