Argument Against Miranda Rights

Every time someone is handcuffed, they are not always read their Miranda rights. When a suspect gives out information to any law enforcement staff, they are not always quizzed; furthermore, some details are volunteered. Officers of the law should know when Miranda rights are to be read; however, there are exclusions under “Miranda”.
When situations occur that results in an arrest, some answers come from an offender as a result of someone being "interrogated” possibly is freely given. At the time when the officer saw Tom, the defendant was hovering over the victim and it was an instantaneous moment between the felon and the policeman. Nobody called the law at as a result of the incident. The officer was patrolling when he heard the woman scream, and he went to the back of house

Tom was not “interrogated” even though he was restrained. The officer’s best interest was that of the victim; therefore, he called an ambulance to seek medical attention for the victim and proceeded to get the bat Tom threw over the fence. Who is to say that someone else could have been involved with the assault of the woman? That would mean the public and the officer himself may have been in danger (Hall, 2015). As stated by Hall (2015), “The relatively rigid Miranda rules are relaxed when there is a public safety exigency that was the impetus of a brief and limited interrogation designed to meet the exigency” (p. 479). Needless to say, the officer proceeded to ask an involuntary question to Tom regarding his “motive”, at which time he should have read his rights to him. Although Tom claims that the bat as well as his statement should be an exclusionary fruit, he will be charged for the assault of the victim and possession of the bat (Hall, 2015) As stated by Hall (2015), “First, volunteered statements are not the product of interrogation. The Miranda decision explicitly states that officers are under no duty to interrupt a volunteered confession in order to read a confessor his or