The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Vs Arizona

716 Words2 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. 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
Three of these exceptions are :
• Maryland v. Shatzer- “In Maryland v. Shatzer, the Court created a break-in-custody exception to Edwards v. Arizona, holding that a defendant who is released from custody for a period of at least fourteen days loses the protection Edwards provides to suspects who invoke the right to counsel.37 The Shatzer Court also decided that a prisoner “subject to a baseline set of restraints imposed pursuant to a prior conviction" is not in custody for Miranda purposes” (Kinports,

More about The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Vs Arizona

Open Document