Miranda vs. Arizona

396 Words1 Page

Miranda vs. Arizona

Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government.

Individual rights did not change with the Miranda decision, however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth and the fourteenth amendment are protected.

This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.

The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects. 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. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.

2. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.

3. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future.

4. If you do not have an attorney available, you have the right to remain silent until you have had an opportunity to consult with one.

5. If you cannot afford an attorney, you have the right to have one appointed for you.

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.

If a police officer fails to advise a suspect of their rights, they may still arrest the individual.

Show More
Related

  • The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Vs Arizona

    716 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Against Consent Searches

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • The Difference between the Miranda Rights and the Charter of Rights

    903 Words  | 2 Pages

    As Canadians, a portion of our rights that are read to us upon arrest are as follows: "It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel in private without delay, You may call any lawyer you want... You have the right to a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel. I am not obligated to take a statement from you or ask you to participate in any process which could provide incriminating evidence until you are certain about whether you want to exercise this right (Griffiths, 2011). It seems pretty straight forward. We get arrested and we are told we can get a lawyer.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Miranda Rights

    1001 Words  | 3 Pages

    Evidence can prove that Miranda Rights should be an important right for the citizens of the United States Of America but should not be a digression or inconsequential and that shows Equality,liberty and justice. If we didn't have miranda rights we would end in a deleterious situation which would end in disaster for example, the police requirement to remember few amendment portrayed to Miranda Rights to recommend citizens that are inculpable to go to jail by police who can fabricate the situation.Evils don't have rights for other citizens like Paris which some of the victims have to be interrogated for a few days. “The Miranda warning prevents police from taking advantage of suspects who have been arrested or are in police custody. The Miranda Court determined that these protections were necessary to

    Read More

  • Fifth Amendment Essay

    1021 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...ained in their questioning. Officers commonly have small cards with the Miranda warnings on them so they don’t forget or skip over a part of ones right, if this does occur evidence still cannot be properly obtained because the person was not fully warned of all their rights. Currently, the only unwarned questioning that can occur is if the officer believes the public is in some type of danger. For example, if police come across a man standing in a convenience store that fits the description of recent thefts in a nearby neighborhood and the man runs once police confront him and is later caught and searched, when upon the search they realize he has an empty shoulder holster. In this scenario the public is in potential danger, the police can ask him where the gun is hidden without reading the man his rights and it would not be violating his Fifth Amendment rights.

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Miranda Rights

    514 Words  | 2 Pages

    When someone is taken into custody they are read certain rights. These rights are called the Miranda rights. These insure that everyone knows what rights they have upon being arrested. Once arrested the police officer must read the rights. Included in the right are the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer. For people that cannot afford a lawyer the lawyer will be appointed. Before the rights were implemented people would think they had to tell the police everything they saw or did, also by police stating the rights the people know that they have the right to a lawyer.

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Public Safety Exception To Miranda

    411 Words  | 1 Pages

    In this paper I will discuss the public safety exception to Miranda. Does Miranda have to be given before any questioning can occur? Will the courts throw out any statement made when the suspect in in custody and being interrogated by the Government? This is a good question and hopefully I can answer this question in the following text.

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case: Ernesto Miranda's Law

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).

    Read More

  • Midterm Hypothetical: The 4th Amendment And 6th Amendment

    868 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...you think I need an attorney?” He also asked this question several times thorough the interrogation. In this situation the police officer should have allowed Mr. Wilson to get a attorney after saying “I think I need an attorney?” because this is going against his basic rights and violates the 6th Amendment.

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona

    543 Words  | 2 Pages

    Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

    Read More

  • Restraint and Activism

    379 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Miranda Warning

    551 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda also protects suspects from overzealous police officers. Although most law-enforcement agents in the United States are decent men and women, some abuse their power. They may try to coerce suspects into giving false confessions. Time and time again, we read of cases where suspects were forced to make confessions because an overzealous or prejudiced police officers want to close a case. The story of Rubin Hurricane Carter, made popular by the motion picture of the same name, demonstrated how lives could be destroyed when vindictive and manipulating detectives abuse their power. The Miranda Warning helps keep abuses in check. If the law is used correctly, the guilty would receive their due punishment. When police officers inform suspects of their rights before interrogation, it is very unlikely that the judge presiding over any case would throw out statements made during questioning.

    Read More

  • Supreme Court Argumentative Essay

    777 Words  | 2 Pages

    Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that imprisoned accused, prior to police questioning, must be well-versed of their constitutional right to their Miranda rights. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can, and will, is used against you in court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you”.

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Miranda Rights

    499 Words  | 1 Pages

    In order for information from an interrogation to be used legally as evidence, law enforcement must read a suspect’s Miranda rights before questioning. Without communicating Miranda rights a suspect’s responses will usually be inadmissible in court. To avoid a suspect(s) “getting off” from their perceived crimes, law enforcement must be diligent and careful throughout the detaining, interrogating process. By stating clearly and taking the time to communicate the Miranda rights to a suspect with a credible witness, will ensure a high probability that information given and used will be

    Read More

  • Police Procedures Essay

    1615 Words  | 4 Pages

    3. You might be asked to take part in a lineup, to do a sample of your handwriting, or to say words connected with the criminal offense that you are charged with, to wear specific clothing or to provide a hair sample. It is best to have your lawyer present in these kinds of processes. You do have a right to a lawyer in case you are asked to take part in a lineup once you have been charged formally by the prosecuting

    Read More

More about Miranda vs. Arizona

Open Document