Racial Profiling In Supreme Court Cases

First evolving from the fathering of the earliest form of the English law enforcement practices, the fifth amendment brought a verity of protection to every citizen of the united states. An important exception was added in the mid to late 80’s with the Miranda court case, when the U.S. Supreme Court found it that if public safety is at immediate risk, a suspect's statements are admissible in court, even if his or her Miranda rights have not been explained. (Erastus-Obilo, Bethel. Everything You Need to Know About Miranda Rights and Warning. Newmarket, Ont., BrainMass, 2012.) Before one can discuss the fifth amendment in further depth one must

The Sixth Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. It guarantees rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts and it was ruled that these rights are fundamental and important. The Sixth Amendment gives the accused the right to speedy and public trial by the impartial jury. The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and reason of accusation and also be confronted with the witness against him as well as obtaining witness in his favor. In this research paper I will provide a thorough analysis of these above rights and give some history of the 6th Amendment.

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

In 1964, after Miranda 's arrest, but before the Court heard his case, the Court ruled that when an accused person is denied the right to consult with his attorney, his or her Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of a lawyer is violated. But do the police have an obligation to ensure that the accused person is aware of these rights before they question that person? (Supreme Court)

Does the police practice of questioning individuals without notifying them of their right to a lawyer and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

In the case Miranda vs. Arizona. This case goes against the 5th and 6th amendments. Miranda says that the police had violated his 5th Amendment right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Miranda addressed the Escobedo rule which states evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court. Also addressed was the Gideon rule which states all felony defendants have the right to attorney. But the police say that Miranda completely voluntarily signed the confession.

The three amendments that are used to protect the rights of those accused of a crime include, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Peak, 2015, p.181). The Fifth Amendment protects the accused against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and life, liberty, and property. Meaning no person will be forced to be a witness against themselves, they cannot be tried for the same offense twice, and their right to life, liberty, and property are protected under the law. (Peak, 2015, p.193). The Sixth Amendment is the right to counsel. Any person who is accused of a crime has the right to counsel for their defense, a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature of their crime which also includes Miranda rights, and to be confronted with the witness against him/her while also having witnesses of their own. (Peak, 2015, p.195). These three Amendments in summary mean to me, that any person who is accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty and their rights are just as important as anyone else. They have the natural born right to have their rights as citizens protected under the law, and ensure fair treatment from law enforcement officers.

     This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court’s decision, former U.S. Senator and

To evaluate, the Fifth Amendment had a rather interesting history, stemming from the declaration of independence. Colonists were tired of unfair trials, no trial rights, or no trials at all. The Fifth Amendment clearly states that any citizen reserves the right for life, liberty, and to own property, may not be arrested for the same crime twice, and will not be required to be a witness against or for himself. When expanding, the Fifth Amendment was made to protect citizens rights when asked to witness against themselves. If this happens, they can plead the 5th, but it is misunderstood that the 5th amendment can not be abused to avoid civil questions. Miranda rights are always repeated to criminally accused citizens so they know they can use the 5th amendment. “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries” (“The Declaration Of” 1). When explaining, the 5th and 6th Amendment were created to protect the right to a trial, the right to remain silent, and the right against double jeopardy; it was created initially in the Bill of Rights. In conclusion, the Fifth Amendment had an interesting origin, use, and creation, and it continues to allow people to exercise their rights.

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 Fifth Amendment right allows us to have a right to an attorney once our Miranda warning has been given. From the onset Miranda v. Arizona (1966) we became more aware of these rights which are continuously being reviewed by the justices, in regards to our rights not just to counsel, but also during an interrogation; and the “Sixth Amendment ensures the right to effective assistance of counsel during the critical stages of a criminal prosecution” (“The Difference between”, n.d.). So, as we consider these amendments we must also understand that they tend to overlap and bear several differences between them.

The Miranda v. Arizona case holds that a person in police custody cannot be questioned without being told that he or she has the right to remain silent, he or she has the right to a lawyer (at government expense if the person can’t pay for it, and lastly that anything the person says after knowing of these rights can be used as evidence of guilt at trial. This case makes sure that a person in custody will not give up without knowing the Fifth amendment, which gives the criminal the right to refuse to be a witness against themself and the sixth amendment, which gives the criminal a right to a lawyer. Without these two fundamental rights, the court will rule the case “dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings” “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be used for the product of their free choice.”

This case brief was written in regards to Miranda v. Arizona, in which The Supreme Court of the United States considered the facts of four separate cases, all of which involved incriminating evidence obtained during official police interrogations. In all four cases Government officials did not advise the individuals, who were under custodial detention, of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. Individuals who are being questioned under a custodial police interrogation are protected from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment .The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases

The Fifth Amendment as it pertains to confessions, states that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves. The Fifth Amendment was created to protect individuals against self-incrimination, and any confession obtained when it is in violation of the Amendment will be inadmissible in court. The case Miranda v. Arizona involves Ernesto Miranda who was arrested based on evidence linking him to a kidnapping and rape. Miranda signed a confession to the rape, but he was never told his right to counsel, his right to remain silent, and that his statements would be used against him during the interrogation before being presented the confession form. His lawyer argued that the

In Sauceda-Contreras, the officer asked for further clarification in asking whether the defendant wanted to talk to the officers. (People v. Sauceda-Contreras (2012) 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 271.) The officer in Sauceda-Contreras stated “ Okay, perhaps you didn’t understand your rights… what the detective wants to know right now is if you’re willing to speak to him right now with a lawyer present?” (Id.) The Court reasoned that the