I think the police had the probable cause to arrest Richie - he fit the description that they were given, and he was in possession of cocaine.
I don’t think so - the police received a specific tip in terms of description, but no other information (such as a last name) that would allow a warrant to be issued. There may not have been time to issue a warrant.
I think the police should be able to stop and question him, but they would need more probable cause to search and arrest him. The only information they had was age.
12.2
If I was Officer Ramos, I would pull Lonnie over and question him, If I was Lonnie, I would probably comply with this.
She wouldn’t have probable cause - there are no facts, other than the suspicious driving, that Lonnie
…show more content…
They cannot arrest him - they should question him first, and ask if they can search the house. In this situation, they can seize any objects in plain view or anything stolen from the store. pg 149
The Supreme Court should allow this - although it would be more effective if the police just apprehended people based on reasonable suspicion, drunk driving is a fairly severe issue that probably warrants this checkpoint.
The Supreme Court should not allow this - about half of the 104 arrests were not even drug-related offenses, which is fairly unreasonable. The safety of other drivers also was not immediately threatened by drug trafficking, unlike drunk driving.
12.10
Miranda committed a crime, confessed to it without knowing that he was allowed to remain silent, and this confession was used against him. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that he would not have confessed had he known he was not required to do so.
I think his confession should have been used as evidence against him - at the time, the police probably assumed he was actively choosing to confess.
Yes, I think they should be required to tell suspects their rights. As shown by this case, they may not be aware of the full extent of these
After two hours of interrogation by the police, Miranda wrote a complete confession, admitting to the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl ten days earlier. Alvin Moore was assigned to represent Miranda at his trial which began June 20th, in front of Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Yale McFate. It was pointed out that Miranda had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment right to have an attorney present during police questioning. Despite that he had not been informed of his rights, Miranda was convicted, forcing him to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The charges as well as the verdict remained the same. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 1965. Criminal Defense Attorney John Flynn agreed to represent Miranda in Alvin Moore’s stead. The Supreme Court agreed that the written confession was not acceptable evidence because of Ernesto’s ignorance of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the police’s failure to inform him of them. Then state of Arizona re-tried him without the confession but with Twila Hoffman’s testimony. He was still found guilty and was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison, but this case set precedence for all other cases of this
Miranda Vs Arizona was a United States Supreme Court case in 1966. The court “ruled that a criminal suspect must make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive certain constitutional rights prior to questioning” (Ortmeier, 2005, 285). This ruling meant that suspects must be aware of their right to remain silent and that if they choose to speak to the police the conversation can be used against them in a court of law. If they do decide to speak under police it must not be under false promises
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government.
I support this idea because the police officers were right near a hospital after they knew he was on cocaine, he was tased multiple times and he was bleeding yet they chose to risk all these injuries and take him to the police station. As police officers I believe they should have put the man’s health before his actions, and should have taken him into the hospital to get the medical care before being taken to the police station. However, there is another side to this report. This side is that it was the man’s fault for this event. In some ways this may true, for instance he chose to commit an illegal act and do cocaine, he also chose to break open a car door and run towards the hospital door. These following actions in some ways support how the officers handled the situation. The man, Linwood Lambert, would not cooperate therefore they believed that the only option they had was to use force. Now although this may not support why they chose to take him to the police station and not the hospital, it does support why the officers took such violent action. Overall, I believe that the man was not in the right frame of mind, due to the cocaine, and therefore could not control his actions which eventually got him killed. However, I continue to believe that the violence imposed on the man was
During the interrogation of the teens a part of the fifth amendment was violated. The right that prohibited them from self incrimination was infringed upon. They were aggressively questioned to the point that admitting
The officers tampered with evidence and made a false discovery that he was the person and that is how he was convicted (Innocent Project N.D.). Many forensic methods have been implemented in research when looking for evidence, but the methods that are not scientific and have little or nothing to do with science. The result of false evidence by other means leads to false testimony by a forensic analyst. Another issue with forensic errors is that it is a challenge to find a defense expert (Giannelli, 2011).
Miranda came about in 1966, when a 23-year-old, name Miranda, was arrested and transported from his home to the police station for questioning in connections with a kidnapping and a rape case. Miranda was kind of poor and uneducated. At the station the police questioned him for two hours. After this two hours of questioning the police obtained a written confession that in turn was used in court against him. Miranda was undoubtedly found guilty.
A vast majority of states in the US have laws that allow police officers to stop and frisk an individual. This procedure is allowed on the basis of reasonable suspicion, where as an arrest requires probable cause. If reasonable suspicion is not displayed then it is not a valid justifiable stop and frisk. Reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content from that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable that that required to show probable cause. It must be grounded on specific facts and logical conclusions based on the officer’s experience.
In other states, laws for drunk driving do help their roads to be safer. Montana should follow suit with the laws in
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.
Ernesto Miranda grew up not finishing high school. He didn’t finish the 9th grade, and he decided to drop out of school during that year. He also had a criminal record and had pronounced sexual fantasies after dropping out of high school. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix in 1963. He had raped an 18 yr. girl who was mildly mentally handicapped in March of 1963. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. When he was found and arrested, and he was not told of his rights before interrogation. After two hours of interrogation, the cops and detectives had a written confession from Miranda that he did do the crimes that he was acquitted for. Miranda also had a history mental instability, and had no counsel at the time of the trial. The prosecution at the trial mainly used his confession as evidence. Miranda was convicted of both counts of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He tried to appeal to the Supreme Court in
...ntense hours of questioning, the one being questioned may just tell the police what they want to hear. This is a morally wrong way for the authorities to go about their interrogations; they just want to pin the blame on somebody as soon as possible to restore peace in the community.
Interrogations have guilt-presumptive, and hence the result is subject to biases due to behavioral and cognitive factors. The interviewers proceed from interviews to interrogations with only the objective of persuading the suspects to tell the truth. However, the suspects have the right to remain silent and seek counsel and are protected from harsh interrogations. The US Supreme Court requires the law enforcement officers to inform defendents their constitutional rights of remaining silent and seek an attorney if they want. The suspects should be interrogated only after they have knowingly and voluntarily waived their Miranda rights.