The United States v. Pedro Alvarez-Sanchez case in 1993 revolved around the interpretation of a federal statute that requires any statement made during a custodial interrogation to be suppressed unless the suspect was advised of his rights (Miranda warnings) and waived them, or unless two hours had passed since he was arrested. The defendant, Pedro Alvarez-Sanchez, argued that his statements should have been suppressed because they were taken within six hours after his arrest but before he received Miranda warnings. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that this rule only applies when suspects are in federal custody for a continuous period exceeding six hours prior to presentment and not from the moment of arrest as Sanchez claimed. Therefore, even though Sanchez's statements were obtained less than six hours after his arrest but more than six hours before presentment without giving him Miranda warnings first did not violate Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 5(a)(1).

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Pedro Alvarez-Sanchez, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's interpretation of federal law was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that a suspect should be presented to a magistrate judge as soon as possible after arrest, regardless of whether they are in federal or state custody. The majority’s decision allowed for an extended period before presentation if the suspect is initially held by state authorities, which he believed contradicted both legislative intent and previous court rulings on this issue. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of suspects' rights due to prolonged detention without judicial oversight.