The Miranda's Rights: The Curpose Of The Miranda Rights

Satisfactory Essays
The Miranda Rights were originally established in 1966 after the Miranda vs Arizona case, to protect the rights of those who have arrested and taken into custody. The rights come from the 5th amendment in the U.S Constitution giving the arrestee the right to have an attorney present, and the right to not be self-incriminated. When a police makes an arrest, they must inform the suspect of their 5th amendment rights. Which are “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state”. Then the officer must ask the suspect “Now do you understand these rights as I have read them to you?” Some police departments in Indiana, New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Alaska will add “We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court”. 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. Prior to the institution of the Miranda Warning, confessions need only be voluntary on the part of the suspect. This created a difficult situation for police, who were then often faced with evidence at trial that the person was not of sound mind or were under circumstantial duress when they gave their confession. It is very imp...

... middle of paper ...

...sufficient break in the time of events between Elstad’s first inadmissible statement and the written confession to insulate the statement from the effect of what went before. It is this impact that must be dissipated in order to make a subsequent confession admissible. But in determining whether the confession has been dissipated, lapse of time, and change of place from the original surroundings. Further, because of the brief period separating the two confessions, the Court of Appeals determined neither of these confessions could be admissible against Mr. Elstad in court. The Oregon Supreme Court has refused to hear the case. The issue with this case is whether an initial failure of law enforcement officers to give the Miranda Rights. Without more “taints” subsequent admissions made after a suspect has been fully advised of and has waived his/ her Miranda Rights.
Get Access