Miranda Rights: The Miranda V. Arizona

Miranda rights are part of a routine police procedure in the United States that ensures that suspects in police custody are informed of their rights before questioning. This was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court after, Miranda, a suspect of rape and kidnapping was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment without being informed of his constitutional rights before interrogation. The court ruled that statements made in response to interrogations by a defendant in a police custody will be admissible at trial if only the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult an attorney and the right against self-incrimination.

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

These amendments make it known that all people have the right to choose whether or not to speak when being questioned, consult with an attorney, be tried by and unbiased jury and be granted a public attorney if necessary (Document E). In the case of Ernesto Miranda, he did not know he had these rights. Therefore, the court could not see his confession as admissible. He was unaware that he could keep quiet if he wanted to and instead his inquisitors pushed him to confess. He did not know he had the right to a lawyer and therefore was on his own deciding how to go about the threat to his future. It has always been tradition that prosecutors could not take confessions into court if investigators used coercion or torture of any kind to gain the confession. This has been in place since the 1600s, as shown by the Laws of Connecticut Colony at the time, which stated “no man shall be forced … to confess any crime against himself” (Document B). This tradition has been present throughout centuries and has only been being more refined and updated as time goes on. The Miranda rulings allowed for yet another opportunity to revamp these rights not only by making sure that people have their rights, but also by making sure that they know explicitly that they have the

Miranda rights were created to help inform people of their constitutional rights when arrested. The officer during the arrest should read these rights to the person to prevent a faulty case. Knowing the rights of the constitution are important if someone ever encounters trouble with the law. The Miranda rights are as followed,

These rights are the right for the suspect to be silent, and the right to an attorney during interrogations. These rights are still required to be read to criminal suspects to this day, to make sure that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are followed. The U.S. Supreme Court made the Miranda Rights because there were many incidents of police violence to get confessions, which could lead to many false confessions. Also, with an attorney, suspects would no longer be afraid to tell their

Whenever a crime takes place, the police arrive at the scene and must tell the one they arrested the Miranda rights. In world book online: Stanley L. Kutler, Ph.D notes, “Miranda V. Arizona was a case in which the supreme court in the United States limited the power of police to question suspects.” Miranda was a criminal who kidnapped and raped several women. He was not able to understand English very well, for Spanish was his language. When he was arrested, he was interrogated for about two hours. He was not given his rights in Spanish, therefore he did understand what they had told him. This means he was not given his right to an attorney or to remain silent. He then confessed orally and in written form. He then took it to the supreme court.

After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda, there were several changes made to the detaining and arresting processes for law enforcement in the United States. The laws were then changed to require all law enforcement to read what would go on to be titled a citizen’s “Miranda Warning” which explained, the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer or public defendant, and that anything they say will be used against them. All of these

Miranda warnings were first invoked by the U.S. Supreme Court, to protect the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights for its citizens, during criminal proceedings. The Miranda case itself involved a Phoenix Arizona man, who was taken into police custody, and transported to a police station and interrogated for over two hours. This interrogation produced a signed confession to kidnapping and rape, which ultimately ended up in a 20-30 year prison sentence. The decision was upheld by the State Supreme Court on appeal, but later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that it violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, by the police not advising the suspect of his rights not to incriminate himself, and his right to counsel.

Moreover, to limit officer’s discretion on unjustly use of deadly force, law enforcement agencies need to adopt new practices and techniques when dealing with the public if deadly use of force is not required. Officers should adopt new practices of using the taser as a means of force. “Tasers [are] developed to subdue suspects with non-lethal means” (DeLone, Thompson, 2009, p.416). Many law enforcement officers praise the use of tasers as a tool to “increase the safety of both officer and citizen by decreasing the use of deadly force” (DeLone, Thompson,2009, p.418). Individuals who are not complying/showing aggression with officers and or have some sort of weapon can be easily subdued and controlled with the taser rather than being shot at

Everyone has heard the lines, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…” It has been played on television and in movies so often that it would be rare for an individual not to have heat it. However, how many individuals know how the Miranda rights came to be?

Miranda vs Arizona has been ensuring our justice for many years. It all started with a man named Ernesto Miranda who was arrested on March 13, 1963 on charges of kidnapping and rape. Miranda was interrogated for about two hours and signed a paper confessing the crime he had commit. However, Ernesto was not given the information of his 5th amendment right. It states, “You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?”. These words were not given to him and therefore Miranda’s charges were overruled in court due to violation of his rights. This then begs the question; do the Miranda rights ensure justice and preserve liberty?

Miranda right one of the best-known cases in the Supreme Court. Everyone has heard about the Miranda rights and how important they are to ensure the fundamental rights of American’s. The Miranda rights are a fundamental part of American society. They appear In many books, television shows, and movies.

To follow the initial importance of all of the aspects of use of force, there are different kinds of use of force (General, 1985). The first of several is constructive authority. Constructive authority doesn’t involve actual physical contact, but simply the use of law enforcement officer’s authority to take control over a suspect (General, 1985).Examples of there are verbal commands, gestures, warnings, and unholstering a weapon (General, 1985). Even pointing a firearm at a subject is an element of constructive authority but is to be used only in appropriate situations (General,

With the Miranda Rights there are a total of five. Those five lines ensure justice and preserve liberty. “You have the right to remain silent” (Miranda Rights, Line 1). Those words are commonly said jokingly or in a movie. What they do not know is that that line preserves our liberty. The line tells us that we do not have to speak if we do not want to. “If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning if you wish” (Miranda Rights, line 4). This fourth line it the same as the first right. You do not have to speak to anyone if you wish not to do so. If you do not want to speak to anyone with our without a

The law enforcement official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspect understands his right to maintain silence. The law enforcement official must then say “Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Again, the official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspects understands what is being said to them. The next statement is “You have the right to an attorney before speaking or have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. Again, verification of understanding must be established. That statement is then followed by “If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you choose. The next Miranda right states that “ If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. The last Miranda right specifically asks “Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” Again after each and every statement given by the law enforcement official verbal or written verification that the suspect understands must be obtained.