The Miranda warnings stem from a United States Court’s decision in the case, Miranda v. Arizona. There are two basic conditions that must be met for Miranda warnings to be required: the suspect must be in official police custody and the suspect must be under interrogation. The suspect goes through a booking process after an arrest. The suspect will have a bond hearing shortly after the completion of the booking process or after arraignment. The arraignment is the suspect’s first court appearance to officially hear the charges filed against him or her and to enter a plea. The preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding determines if there is substantial evidence for the suspect to be tried for the crime charged. In this essay, I will identify and describe at least four rights afforded criminal defendants at the arrest stage and during pretrial. I will analyze the facts presented and other relevant factors in the scenario provided. I will cite legal authority to support my conclusions. In the scenario presented, John Doe is an individual that left his country in an effort to make a better life. However, he does not have legal status in America and was recently arrested for shoplifting merchandise, which was valued over $1,000. At the time of his arrest, John voluntarily began to make incriminating statements to the arresting officers. John voluntarily made incriminating statements, without the arresting officers deliberately trying to elicit or coerce those statements. The arresting officers do not have to warn John not to make indirect statements. When a suspect is arrested and not read Miranda rights, indirect statements may be used as evidence in court, however, the prosecutor must demonstrate that the statements... ... middle of paper ... ...2013, from http://www.mirandarights.org/custodialinterrogation.html Miranda rights. (2009). Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http:www.mirandarights.org National Paralegal College. (2007). The exclusionary rule. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/ProtectionFromSearches&Seizures/ExclusionaryRule.asp Nolo. (2013). Arraignment. Retrieved December1, 2013, from http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/arraignment-term.html Roberson, C., Wallace, H., & Stuckey, G. B. (2013). Procedures in the justice system (1st ed.). [Vitalsource or Kaplan University]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781269223119/pages/76743177 Thomson Reuters. (2013). The Fourth Amendment and the “Exclusionary Rule”. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html
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 and or coercion.
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
Miranda Rights became a United States Supreme Court decision in 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona), in which the high court made a decision in favor of and upheld that the Fifth Amendment rights of Miranda were violated. The Miranda ruling gives suspects the right to remain silent and not speak to any law enforcement as a means to prevent self incrimination, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, if an attorney is requested and the defendant can’t afford one, there are provisions in Miranda for an attorney to be appointed to defend the individual.
...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 Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights which includes the first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These rights apply to the citizens of our great country. The Fourth Amendment covers search laws and has a significant impact on law enforcement procedures. If these procedural rights are not followed, there can be devastating consequences to the outcome of a case.
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. What is the difference between a. and a. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. 2.
Miranda rights, also known as the Miranda warning, is a warning given by police in the United States to suspects in custody before they are interrogated. The name Miranda rights comes from the case Miranda v. Arizona, where the Supreme Court held that the admission of incriminating statements by a suspect who has not been read their rights, violates one's right to counsel. Therefore, if a police officer does not inform a suspect of their Miranda rights, they may not interrogate that person and cannot use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a court of law (Miranda Warning, 2014).... ... middle of paper ... ...
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a certain case.
Well written procedures, rules, and regulation provide the cornerstone for effectively implementing policies within the criminal justice system. During the investigational process, evidence collected is subjected to policies such as Search and Seizure, yet, scrutinized by the Exclusionary Rule prior to the judicial proceeding. Concurrent with criminal justice theories, evidence collected must be constitutionally protected, obtained in a legal and authorized nature, and without violations of Due Process. Although crime and criminal activities occur, applicability of policies is to ensure accountability for deviant behaviors and to correct potentially escalation within social communities It is essential the government address such deviant behavior, however, equally important is the protection of the accused which also must become a priority when investigating criminal cases.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2002. “What is the Sequence of Events in the Criminal Justice System?”
In this paper I am going to be discussing the Miranda rights. What they mean to you, what they entitle you to, and how they came to be used in law enforcement today. I am discussing this topic because, one it is useful to me as a police officer, two they can be very difficult to understand, and three if they are not read properly to you when you are placed under an arrest it could actually get you off. I will start off by discussing the history and some details of the Miranda case.
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule has undergone a harsh and controversial development. This article not only critically analyzes the numerous alternatives and slight modifications to the exclusionary rule but the advanced by courts and commentators as well, (Schroeder, 1361). The article also puts emphasis on the alternative route of police policy making and a means to control official misconduct and violations of citizens rights. The exclusionary rule is one of the most significant defense stance of the fourth amendment. ITs establishment has created a wide spread of protection against violations of citizens rights.
As a result of the Miranda case, all persons detained by the police should be informed of four things before being questioned:
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.