Essay on Safeguarding the Rights of Suspects in Police Custody

When a law enforcement officer or other public employee is accused of potentially criminal conduct, they may face three different kinds of interviews or interrogations. If an officer is interviewed as a criminal suspect, they have the absolute right to decline to answer any questions, or to insist that they have a lawyer of their choosing to attend the interview. The first is type is during a criminal investigation; the second is during a disciplinary investigation and finally during the course of civil litigation where there has been damages. During a criminal interview, there is no professional, ethical or moral duty to participate especially without the assistance of an attorney to represent the officer under investigation. It has come to a surprise that many experienced officers will waive their right to silence and give the investigators an audio recorded statement. Some of the inexperienced criminals do not make incriminating statements. The motive for cooperation is to avoid unfavorable publicity.

It is my belief that police should be allowed to freely contact defendants and it is the defendant’s responsibility to invoke their rights to remain silent and rights to counsel on a case by case basis. This paper will explain the difference between a persons Mirandized counsel rights versus their sixth amendment counsel rights, different Supreme Court cases over the years that have demonstrated the court’s position on suspects being questioned by police, and how these decisions are affecting the world of law enforcement today.

“(a) Before he is interrogated, a person suspected of a criminal offense must be warned of his constitutional rights to silence and counsel; (b) counsel, including appointed counsel if necessary, must be made available during interrogation; and (c) the suspect may waive both counsel and his right to remain silent by an explicit statement to that effect after warning.” (Elsen, S. H., & Rosett, A.1967, p.646)

had the right to maintain silence and “right to have an attorney present during the interrogation”.

Introduction: Miranda v. Arizona was a case that questioned if suspects 5th and 6th Amendment rights were being violated after they were arrested. Should the police advise suspects of their rights before interrogation? The court system was worried that suspects were being forced into a confession without fully being made aware of their rights. The Miranda case has a lot to do with how interrogations are handled today.

     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

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law...” These famous words, so often heard in movies and television shows as a character is arrested, are well known to Americans. But why are law enforcement officials mandated to repeat this to individuals they arrest? Where did it come from? In Miranda V. Arizona, a case taken all the way to the Supreme Court in 1966, it was decided that constitutional rights must be made clear to the defendant at time of arrest in order for any information received during interrogations to be used as evidence in court and to ensure the rights of the accused are protected throughout the entire process throughout the legal system (Gaines & Miller, 2014).

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

The third section of Miranda Rights I examined was “You have silent will” it seems most people for whatever reason, regardless of the crime will talk. Silence is awkward. Me and my partner would ask a very simple question and then just not talk. There is a need to fill in the silence is too great for most low-level offenders, they just start talking. Add that and the fact that many low-level offenders aren't that intelligent and well... They just have diarrhea of the mouth.

The right to remain silent rescues the innocent parties, especially those who can’t recollect the events that transpired due to panic. It also acts as bait to the guilty party who might decide to remain silent which only delays the facts. This gives a clear case for the police to investigate and collect facts.

With the past and current issues our country is having with law enforcement officials the ethical deliberations about corruptions is constantly examining the foundations of police ethics. The reasoning following public corruption indicates an underlying social institutional structure that our country has created. In 2006, Louis Eppolito and Stephen Caracappa were convicted of racketeering, extortion, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and murder charges. Louis and Stephen worked in the NYPD police department; however, they were actually working for the Lucchese crime family mafia. In 2001, Joseph Miedzianowski worked as both a police officer and a drug kingpin; therefore, he used his knowledge from both sides of his work to shake down drug dealers. From 1972 until 1991, Jon Burge oversaw the torture of hundreds of African American men with radiators, cigarettes, and electrocuted their testicles; therefore, in order to assure Chicago police department could get their confessions. During Hurricane Katrina Robert Gisevius, Kenneth Bowen, and Anthony Villavaso members of the New Orleans police department murdered an innocent sixteen-year-old James Brissette under a bridge. Situations like these are highly publicized and often lead the public to doubt our countries police department members. Corruption of ethics and morals within a police department is destructive, and can have a crippling effect on the police department’s organization. When an organization experiences a

Chapter 15 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) outlines through codification the “Powers and Responsibilities Relating to Investigations and Questioning for Indictable Offences”. When operating an interview of questioning suspects about criminal offences, the requirements in chapter 15 relating to questioning suspects are there as safeguards against the abuse of police powers. According to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Bill 2000, the legislation had a number of purposes behind codifying the powers of police. These purposes were to consolidate and rationalize the powers and responsibilities police officers have for investigating

Looking back to roughly around 3,000 B.C., the earliest recorded evidence of law enforcement careers had manifested themselves in Ancient Egypt, where the policemen were stationed to guard the pharaoh, his family, public places, as well as tombs. The first American branch of law enforcement was set up in Boston, Massachusetts around the 1600s. The way this all worked is the townspeople recruited were posted in certain areas throughout the city/town where they would patrol nightly. Law enforcement has progressed drastically since then. We now live in the twenty first century, where law enforcement officers have combined traditional methods and devices with new technological equipment and tactics. This allows the officers to operate at maximum efficiency.

Within our police system in America, there are gaps and loopholes that give leeway to police officials who either abuse the authority given to them or do not represent the ethical standards that they are expected to live up to. Because of the nature of police work, there is a potential for deterioration of these ethical and moral standards through deviance, misconduct, corruption, and favoritism. Although these standards are set in place, many police are not held accountable for their actions and can easily get by with the mistreatment of others. While not every police abuses his or her power, the increasingly large percentage that do present a problem that must be recognized by the public as well as those in charge of police departments

Nonetheless, a suspect must be advised of his right to remain silent, that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law, that he has a right to an attorney present during questioning, and that an attorney will be appointed for him if he can not afford one. (Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at 479.) Moreover, Miranda places a significant burden on the Prosecution to prove a valid waiver thereof, in order to admit statements stemming from a custodial interrogation. (Id. at 436.) Accordingly, without a valid waiver, statements obtained in violation of Miranda must be suppressed.