This concept against self incrimination extended to forced confessions due to Miranda v. Arizona. In the Miranda case, the Supreme Court decided that police have an obligation to inform a suspect to his rights under Constitution. The prosecution needs to show that the defendant was mirandized and that the confession being used by the prosecution as evidence was not coerced from the defendant. The individual needs to know they have the right to remain silent. In addition, confessions need to have been obtained voluntarily (Davenport, 2006).
Following common laws position of an accused right to silence, the concept was clearly created to provide safeguards for suspects. For instance, in Rice v Connolly  we can see that the accused is under no general duty to assist police officers with their inquiries. Besides from protection from self-incrimination, suspects are normally advised not to answer questions that will aid in doing the prosecutors job for them. Moreover, a suspect was not seen as a compellable witness at trial. A compellable witness is legally required to give evidence to a case.
LOWER COURT RULING: The state supreme court affirmed the conviction. Miranda appealed. SUPREME COURT RULING: When a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom, the following warnings must be given: he has the right to remain silent; that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law; that he has the right to have an attorney present; and if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him. The Fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized when a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom. Once these warnings have been given, a person may knowingly and intelligently waive his rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement.
He further argues that the Fifth Amendment rule against self – incrimination was never intended to forbid all pressures against self – incrimination. Justice White argues that the Fifth Amendment forbids self – incrimination only... ... middle of paper ... ...e provided the criminal/suspect with procedural safeguards sufficient to secure the constitution’s privilege against self- incrimination. The Fifth Amendment rights keeps the criminal from testifying against themselves through questioning. The main purpose of this is to stop the government from compelling a confession through deception. 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.
This Court should adopt a per se bar standard that the government may not authorize an investigatory stop for a completed misdemeanor. Mr. Dansby’s constitutional rights were violated when the officer conducted an invest... ... middle of paper ... ...t necessary, as it does not serve the purpose of the probable cause warrant standard established under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1655. By prohibiting investigatory searches and seizures for a completed, nonviolent misdemeanor, this Court will be able to deter the police misconduct.
Given these circumstances there is no legitimate need to search for further evidence. All the proof needed to give a ticket for... ... middle of paper ... ...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. The logic used by the Court in order to justify their conclusion is fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution.
The Exclusionary Rule was created by the Supreme Court and says that “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure could not be used against a person in federal court” (Great American Court Cases 360). The Exclusionary rule is considered just because it protects the people’s constitutional rights from being violated and provides a check on the power of law enforcement and state courts. Early in British history, the establishment of the Magna Carta gave its citizens basic human rights such as the right to a fair trial by jury in circumstances of accused misdemeanor. However, this document allowed “general warrant[s which gave consent to arrest accused criminals but did not have limitations on their search or seizure and that] did not expire until t... ... middle of paper ... ...g v. United States , 555 U.S. ___ (2014) available at: http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2014/2008/2008_07_513 (last visited Thursday, November 19, 2014). - - -.
In order for the rights listed in the Constitution to have substance, there must be enforceable remedies imposed on the government for violations of those rights. In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Weeks v. United States,2 introduced the exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment.3 The Weeks Court felt that the only effective way to enforce the Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures was to adopt a rule that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used by the government against a defendant at trial. The Weeks Court further stated that a court should not sanction illegal government conduct by admitting into evidence the fruits of that illegal conduct. Later, in Silverthorne Lumber v. United States,4 the Supreme Court not only prohibited introducing into evidence those items directly seized during an illegal government search but also any evidence indirectly derived from that search. Originally, the exclusionary rule announced in Weeks did not apply to the states because at that time the Supreme Court limited the application of the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Government.
Also the officer did not have the right to move around the things in his trunk to find out about the computer. Mr. Wilson also should not have been convicted since he was asking for an attorney and that told you have the access to in your Miranda Rights. In my opinion Mr. Wilson's 4th and 6th Amendments were violated in the search for the car and the confession.
The ‘exclusionary rule’ was created to put under limitations the Federal officials and United States courts as they exercise their powers and authority. Additionally, it is in place to see that people maintain their own privacy and rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendments. It also allows people to secure their premises, person, papers and other effects from unwarranted and unreasonable searches and seizures under the pretense of law. The United States constitution does not allow or tolerate police searches and seizures without warrants and therefore illegal searches and seizure unless there is a good reason for it. This article will argue that the provision for ‘exclusionary rule’ has deterred the police from harassing innocent citizens particularly the minorities groups and defendants too with illegal and unwarranted searches and seizures.