Miranda Rules Research Paper

The Miranda rights were created in 1966 by the United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. The purpose of the Miranda warning is to protect all suspects’ “Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions”(Miranda Rights, 2009). The Miranda rights are done once an arrest has been made or before the questioning occurs and then an officer is free to ask questions for the investigation. The suspect can either remain silent or answer the questions being asked. Suspects must be told their constitutional right to have an attorney and against self- incrimination before the questions.

There once was a point in time where people would be prosecuted without letting them defend themselves. They would be taken to jail, torture, or even put to death with no trial. Today, we have the bill of rights. The bill of rights are the first ten amendments that hold basic rights for everyone in America. The sixth amendment is used in every single court case that goes on in the United States of America.

The case Miranda v. Arizona that took place in 1963 changed the way police officer question/interrogate their suspect. Back in those days, police officers used to get away with interrogating suspects without informing them of their constitutional rights until the Miranda case came about. Concerning the Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that by detaining suspects before questioning they must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination (“Miranda v. Arizona,” 2006). In the year 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. The police officers that arrested him begin to question him without informing him of his constitutional rights to an attorney

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.

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.

A person in custody shouldn’t be given their Miranda warnings before being asked consent to search because the arresting officer(s) aren’t supposed to expect the defendant to know these rights. Moreover, they have not begun the interrogation which is one of the requirements for reading of the Miranda warnings. The defendant is not free to go when under custodial interrogation, but is when obtaining a consent to search which is why there are no elaborate

Miranda V. Arizona has been a case that impacted our police officers and offenders and is still in place today. In 1996 Phoenix Arizona Ernesto Miranda a 18 year old school drop out with a 8th grade reading level was convicted of kidnaping and rapping a 18 year old girl.. He was a troubled teen growing up convicted of small offenses but this offense made the headlights. The women who was raped went home and told her family, one day her brother sees a car that matches the description and part of the license plate Ernesto Miranda’s car matching the description and was asked to come down to the police station for questioning. Ernesto Miranda lines up with other men on a line and the women says “that looks like him but I would have to hear his voice to fully identify him”, As the integration went on he was told that a women had positively accused him, which was false. Not only did the police lie to him but after that the investigation was on for two hours, he then signed a written confession. He was found guilty and He later states that he had no right to counsel and was never read his rights this case was taken to the Arizona supreme court. The court supported the ruling so Miranda and his lawyer now took it to the united states supreme court , the constitutional issue was the 5th amendment establish the people’s rights to not have witness against them self and the 6th amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney was also violated. In the Supreme

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, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda

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 Miranda warnings are to be read to all suspect in custody who are interrogated (Hall, 2015). Officer Norman violated the suspect Fifth Amendment rights when failing to Mirandized him after continuing to question his motives pertaining to the crime. The United States Supreme Court decided in 1966, that the historic case of Miranda versus Arizona acknowledged that whenever a suspect is detained in police custody, before being interrogated, he or she must be informed of their Fifth Amendment rights (Hall, 2015). As a result, this right gives the suspect the freedom from making any self-incriminating statements by informing them they have the right to remain silent. In this scenario, the Miranda warning should have been given when the suspect

With the warning also being so common in the media, the actual meaning and representation of the warning is mostly lost to many suspects not fully understanding what its full meaning is. They may not be of sound mind or they may even be too emotional to grasp its meaning that it is their rights to use and exercise. Whatever be the case, the individual’s emotional and mental state plays a huge part in how they comprehend what is going on. In most cases, the reading of the warning is crucial to how the suspect interprets it. If the officer states it angrily, the suspect may be too intimidated to understand that they have been told their rights rather than if the officer were to state it calmly and in a mild tone. Most individuals also come from a background where they do not possess enough familiarity with the law or the Constitution to be able to exercise these rights (Galatzer-Levy & Galatzer-Levy, 2012). Shortly after the Miranda decision came into being, its value questioned as to whether it would be of use to everyday law enforcement. Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that in his opinion concerning the Miranda case, "cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime." The court’s ruling that all interrogations involve the “application of state power” has had the effect that some police officers will go to drastic measures to obtain the confession that they so desire (Zalman & Smith, 2007). The suspect may also decide to waive their rights. Since there is not a standard rule in place regarding the waiver, some states have decided that the best way they can handle it would be to have the suspect sign a waiver form

In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must inform detained criminal suspects of their constitutional rights prior to police interrogation. This decision was the result of the Miranda v. Arizona case. The case began in 1963 when a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with robbery, rape, and kidnapping. Miranda was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to his interrogation. In addition, during his questioning Miranda had no counsel present despite the fact that he had a history of mental instability. Within the two hours he was questioned, Miranda allegedly confessed to the charges. His confession then went on to serve as the only evidence presented at the trial. Miranda was

“No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”, (US Constitution amend. V). Whether law enforcement should be required to give the Miranda warning upon requesting to search an individual without prior reasoning has caused much controversy in the past. One might think that a topic as simple as this one would have a simple solution; law enforcement should be required to give a warning similar to the Miranda warning upon request to search an individual, or an individual’s property, without prior reasoning or warrant.

The Miranda rights are not explicitly stated in the constitution, however the constitution does guarantee against self-incrimination by the 5th amendment and the right to council by the 6th amendment. Law enforcement officials are run by the department of justice, they are responsible for reading these rights to all people they arrest and in my opinion I feel that the officials do a good job of ensuring that all people they detain are read their Miranda rights.

The United States Constitution protects for suspects right against compelled self-incrimination during a police interrogation, regardless of whether they are charged with a federal or state crime. In other words, he or she cannot be enforced to confess to an offense or any part of an offense. Also, the state constitution may protect suspects, but regardless of what protections the state constitution provides, the police must, at least, satisfy the relevant federal tests. Therefore, before they are interrogated, the police must always give them their “Miranda warnings.”