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.
However, the Miranda Rights do not have to be read to a suspect when he/she is arrested. Sometimes they are not even read at all. The rights only have to be read to a suspect if he/she is planned on being interrogated by an officer or detective. If the officer does decide to interrogate the suspect, the Miranda Rights must be read to the suspect before the interrogation begins. The main purpose of this rule is so the case has a less chance of being overturned in court.
After which, the police officer in charge would obtain a valid waiver of the Miranda privilege by the criminal to terminate any further questioning immediately, most especially, upon a criminal request. The right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during an interrogation is the two most significant right in the Miranda rule. The suspect/criminal must clearly invoke the right to remain silent whenever an attorney is requested, and the law enforcement must stop all interrogation immediately. This rule has become so rooted in the police routine practices that they have become part of the national culture; yet, remain controversial. The Miranda rule was intended to protect against coerced confessions, but has been criticized for tying the hands of the law enforcement, its officials, and favoring criminals.
The courts originally instilled the right to silence to prevent any chances of the suspect incriminating himself. The right to silence is classified as a privilege a suspect receives to remain silent or refrain from answering any questions or comments during any questioning by the prosecution. Remaining silent is for the person who believes, on reasonable grounds, that he or she is suspected of having been a party to an offence or asked to supply information by any person in authority about the occurrence of an offence, the identity of the participants, and the roles they played. In both cases, the party is entitled to remain silent when questioned. Following common laws position of an accused right to silence, the concept was clearly created to provide safeguards for suspects.
A restraining order is a court document that restricts, or eliminates, contact between two people. Restraining orders are usually associated with victims of domestic violence, but can be obtained by victims of any form of harassment. Essentially, a judge decides how far a the defendant must stay away to keep you safe. In extreme cases, a judge will order no form of contact, including telephone, letters or even emails. Violating a restraining order is tantamount to violating any other court order and will result in the defendants arrest.
The Amendment may be pleaded for in the court of law if the criminal believes that answering during an interrogation by the police will lead to self – incrimination. The United State Supreme Court stretched the Fifth Amendment right by including any circumstances outside the courtroom that involves the limitation of personal freedom. Therefore, each time the law enforcement and its official puts a suspect or criminal into their custody, the law enforcement worker must make sure the suspect or criminal are aware of their legal right
The arresting officer will still ask questions before the arrest, but must inform the suspect that the questioning is voluntary and that he or she is free not to answer any of the questions. If you agree to police questioning, you can later decide to stop answering the questions. If you have been Mirandize and you waive your rights that means you will speak with the police without y...
If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney, the state has a heavy burden to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege. A valid waiver is not presumed simply from silence. Warnings are a judicial prophylactic to protect the fundamental right against compelled self-incrimination because of the oppressive nature of station house questioning. This case does not hamper police officers in investigating crime because general on-the-scene questioning is not affected. The majority notes that once an individual chooses to remain silent or asks to first see an attorney, any interrogation should cease.
They must also be “informed that if they cannot afford counsel, legal help will be provided free of charge prior to any questioning” (Horgan, 1979, p. 78). The reasoning for these rights are to make sure that the suspect is aware of their rights and can not say they did not know them when they confess to a crime. An obstacle that officers face are making sure the suspect understands their rights and if they do continue without counsel that they are willingly and knowing waiving these rights. If the Miranda rights are not given or improperly waived, any of the information the suspect makes cannot be used against him and will be excluded from evidence during trial. The challenges and overcoming them
(See cases Miranda v Arizona, Dickerson v United States and Escobedo v Illinois) "If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent." (U.S. Gov Info/Miranda: Right of Silence) The dominant key participants would be the prosecution, police officers, and the supreme courts. The challengers would be the defendant, attorney, and the protestors if any.