Final Essay

Hey, Melinda did you know “Deception can occur in any or all three stages of the detecting process during the investigation, interrogation, and court testimony” (Ciske, 2009). Criminals have every reason to expect that law enforcement officers are going to use deception against them, just as well as they lie to escape accusation. The law enforcement officers in this situation must take into account what sorts of methods are permissible and what the costs are. However, law enforcement officers have to take into account a confession is a substantial piece of evidence that can be presented in court. If the police have to lie to get a confession, it’s still up to the judge to determine if the suspect confession seems voluntary. People may disagree with police tactics during interrogation; however, police are not trained psychologist their deception during interrogating of a suspect has solved numerous of crimes. Therefore, law enforcement interrogations are videotaped inside the interrogation room to create an objective record of police questioning to which all interested and potentially interested parties may appeal, suspects, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and juries. (Wakefield & Underwager, 2014)

Now, if a person is not warned of their Miranda rights, then any information which was obtained through interrogation will be inadmissible at trial. The “Miranda warning is in place to allow an accused to consult with an attorney before a custodial interrogation, even though they may not be formally arrested” (“The Difference between”, n.d.). The term in custody does not mean they are in custody for Miranda

"A man can only endure so much before his will is broken and he can not push farther... we, sir, are here to test this one's will, and in turn, reveal the length of his abilities". In The First Part Last by Angela Johnson, a 16 year old boy named Bobby, whose surname the book does not reveal, is given the onus of taking care of a child that his girlfriend, Nia, had given birth to before they were separated due to medical issues with her body. The story begins with introducing Bobby, and we soon find out that because of the situation at hand, he must become a man to cope with the stress and the potential regret that comes with having a child at 16. So Bobby was forced to become a man, in order to truly reveal the length of his abilities, and

If a officers question a suspect without first giving the Miranda rights, any statement or confession made is presumed to be involuntary, and cannot be used against the suspect in any criminal case. In other words it can't be used against you in any way.Any evidence gotten as a result of the confession will most likely be thrown out of the case. And will never be used against you. This is good because it preserves you liberty. So if they don't say the Miranda rights to you then they can't use the evidence they gathered against you. This ensures justice to the person in custody .

The Court ruled in the case of Miranda v. Arizona that interrogations are in inherently stressful and pressure the defendant to cooperate based on a lack of knowledge regarding their specific rights during questioning. Because of this finding they concluded officers have a duty to advise the defendant of their rights through the Miranda warning. The requirement is only required when the suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation [7].” The Court focused on the two conditions triggering the need for the Miranda warning because of the impermissibly high risk of coerced confessions [13]. The very nature of in which defendants are questioned alone by law enforcement officers trained in using tactics to “persuade, trick, or cajole

If an officer fails to read the defendant his or her rights before obtaining a confession, then the confession could be inadmissible based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession. For instance, if Miranda were applicable to the situation then the confession would be inadmissible if the defendant’s rights were not read. Subsequently, the defendant’s Miranda warnings must be issued when they are taken into custody, the defendant’s statements are the result of an interrogation, and there is a law enforcement officer present (Metropolitan Nashville Police Department Academy, 2015). Additionally, interrogations include words or actions by law enforcement officers that can reasonably be expected to induce incriminating

Miranda warnings can render a subsequent confession admissible if sufficient time has passed to purge the taint of the illegal seizure. (Brown v. Illinois (1975) 422 U.S. 604 (even if subsequent statements were voluntarily under the Fifth Amendment, it must be a sufficient act of free will to purge the primary taint).) Moreover, if a defendant is unlawfully detained, incriminating or inculpatory statements stemming from custodial interrogation are inadmissible, even if the defendant was Mirandized and a valid waiver was obtained prior to interrogation. (Brown, supra, 422 U.S. 604 (in addition to Miranda warnings, courts considered the temporal proximity of the illegal police conduct, the presence of intervening circumstances and the purpose

(Hall, 2014) Although, Tom was not Mirandized his motive statement was obtained illegally may not be admitted to prove his guilt; however, the Supreme Court stated that statements that violate Miranda may be admitted, under certain circumstances, to impeach the defendant. (Hall, 2014) The Supreme Court also held that any physical fruits of non-Mirandized confession are not to be suppressed at trial. (Hall, 2014) Tom was not coerced by Officer Norman in the scenario. Therefore, if Tom’s confession is different at trial, the prosecutor can use Tom’s admission statement from his first encounters with Officer Norman can be used as a rebuttal at the

When police officers interrogate a suspect without providing a warning about the Miranda rights, any statement or confession made is considered involuntary and cannot be used against the suspect in any criminal case. The evidence uncovered as a result of

Complete the final exam offline during the final exam week. Once you have complete the

Evidence found as a result from a confession falls into the realm of the exclusionary rule, which was applied to both federal and state cases in Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio respectively. The exclusionary rule concludes that evidence that was obtained as a result of a violation of the constitution is inadmissible in court because the method to obtain the evidence was unconstitutional (Hall & Feldmeier, 2016). Regarding the suspect’s confession to the crime during interrogation after Miranda Rights were read, the confession can be used under the exclusionary rule. The confession being scrutinized is that of armed robbery. First, the suspect was arrested and brought into interrogation. The police proceeded to read him the Miranda Rights;

These last five weeks in EXP 105 has really helped me learn a lot about learning in general, and also it has helped me to understand myself as a learner. If I had to explain the concept of learning to someone who has not yet taken this class, I would tell them that it is simply knowing who you are as learner and knowing what are your intentions are when it comes to learning.

The first thing to determine is whether the type of questioning is part of a criminal or administrative investigation (Doerner, 2012). Under Miranda warnings, an officer cannot be compelled to make a statement or answer questions if they could incriminate themselves criminally. That officer would also be in a custodial situation and was not free to go. If the officer chooses to make a statement and/or answer questions, they can be used against the officer in criminal proceedings. It should be standard practice for investigators to have at least one witness and present the Miranda warnings in writing which state the following:

Without being Mirandized the police can do generally whatever they want to get a person to confess. Many times, this leads to a false confession and the accused person is charged with a crime they did not commit. In an article in the academic journal "An Investigation of Implied Miranda Waivers and Powell Wording in a Mock-Crime Study,” Gillard said, “Informing suspects of their right to silence and counsel was deemed necessary by the Court to prevent coerced self-incrimination” (Gillard). If a person is coerced into a false confession they would get convicted of a crime that they did not commit. This is why Miranda warnings should always be given upon arrest.

Under Miranda, “interrogation” refers to all questions, actions, and statements made by the police that may provoke a suspect to incriminate themselves. Officers must be aware of what they say around suspects when the suspects have been mirandized and have