Miranda Warnings Essay

If you ever have been arrested or questioned for a crime, you are probably familiar with the following words: “you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court of law. You have the right to talk to lawyer and have him present with you while being questioned by police officers, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you before any questioning.” Those are the most common words throughout law enforcement agencies. Those words are now mandatory to be said by an officer arresting a criminal because of one man, Ernesto Miranda. Where did the Miranda rights come from and why do we have them? What do the Miranda rights mean to you? And are they a positive or negative thing for the population?

Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains

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

Throughout the past centuries, the United States has encountered many court cases dealing with illegally searching citizens homes and using the evidence found against them. Cases dealing with Search and Seizure have dated back to Mapp v. Ohio, in which Dollree Mapp’s apartment was illegally searched and child pornography was found. This case raised the question, may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This issue is a major problem because it could lead to many citizens rioting and even more cases dealing with this controversial topic. In spite of many attempts to eliminate illegal search and seizures, it has still been a reoccurring problem. Regarding the issue of search and seizure, the Supreme Court has developed a much

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

Issue: Whether respondent’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated when he was subjected to a search of his person, albeit under probable cause, without a warrant and prior to a formal arrest.

HOLDING: The defendant King made the statements when he was in custody so therefore the investigation was no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, it was centered upon him violating the Criminal law which made an effect on the both defendants’ convictions.

What constitutes a valid search and seizure? The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. Consequently, it seeks to create stability or poise between the needs of law enforcement and the privacy of people in the United States (Worrall, 2017). The justifications that arise from the law make sure that enforcement officials function within reasonable standards in their search of a suspect. This paper examines the three levels of justification that validates a Fourth Amendment search. As a result, it is necessary to explore such justifications and their applicability.

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

Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in Staten Island, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in North Charleston and, most recently, Freddie Gray in Baltimore have dominated the headlines this entire school year. These men and their stories provide the basis for claims of racially discriminatory treatment of African Americans at the hands of the police. It is true that each of the stories surrounding these men is different, but the one unifying theme is that police around the country are interpreting our Constitutional rights in a way that is insufficient to protect African Americans and the population in general. This paper will explore one Constitutional right— the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures--and examine how one Supreme Court decision that narrowed the scope of the 4th Amendment and unintentionally created a mechanism by which the rights of citizens could be unfairly impeded by police.

We Americans are very fortunate that we have one of the top ten amendments that grant us the right to our privacy not being violated. The Fourth Amendment search and seizure clause focuses primarily on privacy; and this is enforced to ensure that citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also does not matter what level of law enforcement jurisdiction an officer is apart of, whether it be State or Federal they are not allowed to violate this right. This particular amendment has been ameliorated many times, and that is to meet the needs of the American people. This paper shall discuss the following: the history and purpose of the Fourth Amendment, an explanation of whether or not the United States requires police to

In recent times there has been a growing number of concerns regarding the way police officers perform arrests. Along with these arrests are searches conducted by officers which can sometimes be unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects its citizens by giving “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (U.S. Const., amend. IV). This amendment aims to prevent officers from conducting random searches of a citizens’ property and aims to give them a reasonable expectation of privacy.

“The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,..”

A defendant must be advised of their rights anytime they are going to be interrogated in a manner where the answers can or will be incriminating towards them. Whenever I advise a suspect of their Miranda warnings I do so in a manner where they can understand what I am saying, and I am sure to have my body camera on while advising them. I read off the Miranda warnings in the event I have to go to court and the defendant is attempting to discredit me or my peers. The Miranda warnings are as follows. “You have the right to remain silent. Any statements made may be used against the defendant to to gain conviction. The right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer present during questioning. For the indigent, a lawyer will be provided without