Miranda vs. Arizona

396 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Miranda vs. Arizona Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government. Individual rights did not change with the Miranda decision, however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth and the fourteenth amendment are protected. This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law. The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects. After an arrest is made, before they may begin questioning they must first advise the suspect of their rights, and make sure that the suspect understands them. These rights are known as the Miranda Warnings and include: 1. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. 2. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. 3. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. 4. If you do not have an attorney available, you have the right to remain silent until you have had an opportunity to consult with one. 5. If you cannot afford an attorney, you have the right to have one appointed for you. If the suspect refuses his right to an attorney, they may begin questioning him. If he/she decides invoke their right to remain silent, the police may not question the suspect, however they may at a later time attempt to question him again. If the suspect requests an attorney, questioning may not begin until the attorney had arrived and the suspect has had an opportunity to consult with him. If a suspect cannot afford an attorney the courts must appoint one for them, if they face a possibility of imprisonment. Until an attorney is assigned to their case and they have had an opportunity to consult with him, the police may not begin any questioning. If a police officer fails to advise a suspect of their rights, they may still arrest the individual.

Show More
Related

  • Argumentative Essay On Miranda Rights

    1001 Words  | 3 Pages

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (The Consitution of the United States, Article I) In conclusion,this can prove why miranda rights are important to american society with three reasons that are due process, provide a free attorney,and cops warning to citizens.Miranda rights are a prerequisite piece of information for citizens and police,citizens need to remember their miranda

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case: Ernesto Miranda's Law

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    Some people might even argue that the Miranda’s laws might actually be harmful to law enforcement. Because the Miranda rules specify that a suspect must be read their Miranda Rights and has a right to waive those rights. If the suspect declines, the police are required by law to stop all questioning. Even if a suspect initially waives his rights, during an interrogation he can halt the process at any time by asking for a lawyer or taking back the waiver. The police, from that moment on, are not allowed to suggest that he or she reconsider (ncpa.org). Because of this, many people feel that this has had a harmful affect on law enforcement. Police have found that is much more difficult to get a confession. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), the fraction of suspects questioned who confessed dropped from 49% to 14% in New York and from 48% to 29% in Pittsburg. With fewer confessions, police also found that it is much more difficult to solve crimes. For example, following the Court decision, the rates of violent crime cases solved fell drastically from 60% (or higher) to approximately 45%. This level has remained constant over the years. Also, due to fewer confessions and fewer crimes that are solved, this means there are fewer convictions. According to the NCPA, there are 3.85 fewer convictions every year because of Miranda. Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards which are intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictate the need

    Read More

  • Midterm Hypothetical: The 4th Amendment And 6th Amendment

    868 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...you think I need an attorney?” He also asked this question several times thorough the interrogation. In this situation the police officer should have allowed Mr. Wilson to get a attorney after saying “I think I need an attorney?” because this is going against his basic rights and violates the 6th Amendment.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Vs Arizona

    716 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda rights are the entitlements every suspect has. An officer of the law is required to make these rights apparent to the suspect. These are the rights that you hear on every criminal investigation and policing show in the country, “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you, you have the right to consult an attorney, if you can no t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.” After the suspect agrees that he or she understands his/her rights, the arrest and subsequent questioning and investigation may continue. These are liberties that were afforded to suspected criminals in the Miranda Vs Arizona. However, with every rule there also exceptions like: Maryland v. Shatzer, Florida v. Powell, and Berghuis v. Thompkins.

    Read More

  • Against Consent Searches

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • The Difference between the Miranda Rights and the Charter of Rights

    903 Words  | 2 Pages

    As Canadians, a portion of our rights that are read to us upon arrest are as follows: "It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel in private without delay, You may call any lawyer you want... You have the right to a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel. I am not obligated to take a statement from you or ask you to participate in any process which could provide incriminating evidence until you are certain about whether you want to exercise this right (Griffiths, 2011). It seems pretty straight forward. We get arrested and we are told we can get a lawyer.

    Read More

  • The Use of Deceptive Interrogation

    2449 Words  | 5 Pages

    The first thing that should be thought about prior to any form of interrogation is the suspect’s rights; particularly his or her Miranda Rights. Also known as the Miranda warnings, “the purpose of [which] depends on whether you are the law enforcement officer or the suspect. From a suspect's point of view, it is to remind you that you have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself. From an officer's point of view, it is to help preserve the admissibility of your statements in a criminal proceeding” (Second Call Defense, 2014). There are four main principles to the Miranda statement that an officer will read; although the exact wording may change from police department to police department. Miranda warnings or rights basically state that: you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you, you have the right to an attorney, and you may be appointed an attorney if you cannot afford one. In addition, an individual may wave his rights outlined within the Miranda statements. Suspects can waive their rights to a lawyer and to remain silent by knowingly and voluntari...

    Read More

  • Restraint and Activism

    379 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Warren Court

    1942 Words  | 4 Pages

    An Historical Argument for the Right to Counsel During Police Investigation. (1964). The Yale Law Journal, 1000-1057.

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Public Safety Exception To Miranda

    411 Words  | 1 Pages

    In this paper I will discuss the public safety exception to Miranda. Does Miranda have to be given before any questioning can occur? Will the courts throw out any statement made when the suspect in in custody and being interrogated by the Government? This is a good question and hopefully I can answer this question in the following text.

    Read More

  • Fifth Amendment Essay

    1021 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...ained in their questioning. Officers commonly have small cards with the Miranda warnings on them so they don’t forget or skip over a part of ones right, if this does occur evidence still cannot be properly obtained because the person was not fully warned of all their rights. Currently, the only unwarned questioning that can occur is if the officer believes the public is in some type of danger. For example, if police come across a man standing in a convenience store that fits the description of recent thefts in a nearby neighborhood and the man runs once police confront him and is later caught and searched, when upon the search they realize he has an empty shoulder holster. In this scenario the public is in potential danger, the police can ask him where the gun is hidden without reading the man his rights and it would not be violating his Fifth Amendment rights.

    Read More

  • The Miranda Warning

    551 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda is a ruling which says that the accused have the right to remain silent and prosecutors may not use statements made by them while in police custody, unless the police advice them of their rights. In other words, a police officer must inform a suspect of this fundamental right, under the Fifth Amendment, at the time of their arrest and or interrogation. Miranda protect ignorant suspects from incriminating themselves.

    Read More

  • Supreme Court Argumentative Essay

    777 Words  | 2 Pages

    Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that imprisoned accused, prior to police questioning, must be well-versed of their constitutional right to their Miranda rights. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can, and will, is used against you in court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you”.

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Miranda Rights

    499 Words  | 1 Pages

    In order for information from an interrogation to be used legally as evidence, law enforcement must read a suspect’s Miranda rights before questioning. Without communicating Miranda rights a suspect’s responses will usually be inadmissible in court. To avoid a suspect(s) “getting off” from their perceived crimes, law enforcement must be diligent and careful throughout the detaining, interrogating process. By stating clearly and taking the time to communicate the Miranda rights to a suspect with a credible witness, will ensure a high probability that information given and used will be

    Read More

  • Police Procedures Essay

    1615 Words  | 4 Pages

    This segment looks at some of the usual questions everyone has regarding their rights and duties when contacted by a police officer. If The Police Tries To Stop Me On The Street And I Know I Didn’t Do Anything Wrong, Do I Comply?

    Read More

More about Miranda vs. Arizona

Open Document