Suspect Rights And Interrogation

Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? These are all questions evolving from the recent Miranda V Arizona court case. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home on March 13th, 1963 and brought to a police station. They had reason to believe he had connection to a kidnapping and rape, along with theft and armed robbery. The victim of the kidnapping could not recognize Miranda as her attacker, so the police escorted Miranda to an interrogation room. Miranda was interrogated for two hours, and during these two hours the police acquired a written confession to the crime from Miranda. Of course, Miranda went to trial for his actions, but during the trial, Miranda’s attorney argued in court that since the police admitted to not explaining Miranda’s rights to him, this was a violation of his fifth amendment rights. Even with all of this Miranda’s written confession was still used as evidence against him in court.

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.

Throughout the interrogation, the police did not tell Miranda about his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney (“Miranda v. Arizona Podcast”). Miranda was question for two hours without a lawyer. Miranda eventually gave the police details of the crime that closely matched the victims story. He agreed to write his confession in a written statement which he wrote out under the words, “this confession was made with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me” (“Miranda Rights”). His confession was used as evidence when he was tried and convicted for the crime by the court.

In New York V. Quarles there is a public safety exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s answers can be admitted into evidence. Quarles was stopped by police and frisked, the frisk revealed an empty holster. Quarles then stated, “The guns over there”. That is a public safety exception. In New York V. Harris, Harris was charged with selling heroin to an undercover police officer. The rule stated, “Evidence inadmissible for lack of Miranda warnings does not prevent the admission of the evidence for all purposes if the admission satisfies another legal admission, such as impeachment.” (http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/evidence/evidence-keyed-to-mueller/mpeachment-of-witnesses/harris-v-new-york/). In Rhode Island V Innis, Thomas Innis was arrested, read his Miranda Rights and placed in the back of a patrol car. The police then discussed the whereabouts of where the gun would be, and Innis then disclosed the location of where the gun was to avoid any incidents. The Fifth Amendment in terms of interrogations will only be if an individual is expected to respond to any questioning. In this instance, Innis was just around the conversation but not being spoken

If an officer fails to read the defendant his or her rights before obtaining a confession, then the confession could be inadmissible based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession. For instance, if Miranda were applicable to the situation then the confession would be inadmissible if the defendant’s rights were not read. Subsequently, the defendant’s Miranda warnings must be issued when they are taken into custody, the defendant’s statements are the result of an interrogation, and there is a law enforcement officer present (Metropolitan Nashville Police Department Academy, 2015). Additionally, interrogations include words or actions by law enforcement officers that can reasonably be expected to induce incriminating

Ernesto Miranda’s written confession confession included a signed statement saying that he had a full understanding of his fifth amendment rights. Miranda argued that he was never told his rights nor did he understand them. In the fifth amendment of the United States constitution it says that an accused person cannot be forced to witness against their self, also the sixth amendment states that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Miranda claimed that he neither knew his fifth amendment right to remain silent or his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. He argued that a suspect who didn’t have any prior knowledge of his rights would feel pressured to answer all the questions posed by the interrogators. They used his written testimony to convict Miranda. Since Miranda didn’t know he didn’t have to answer all the questions, his confession wasn’t voluntary (alavardohistory). Therefore since it wasn’t voluntary he was forced to “witness” against himself. As a result the actions of the police violated the fifth amendment.

An individual, whether they are suspects or witnesses, cannot be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony. This is a constitutional right under the Fifth and Sixth amendment used as a basis when discussing the rights of an individual being interviewed or interrogated. The Fifth Amendment refers to no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves. The Sixth amendment requires the accused to be informed of the charges against them; any statement they make can be used against them in court, and the right to have counsel present to assist in their defense. The explanation of the individual's rights is called the preinterrogation warning or the “Miranda Warning.” The Miranda Warning consists of four

In 1966, a milestone in Law Enforcement interrogation procedures was established through the case of Miranda vs Arizona. In the case of Orozco vs Texas, just a couple years later in 1969, the guidelines established by Miranda vs Arizona changed the ruling of Reyes Arias Orozco who self-incriminated himself without being read his Fifth Amendment rights while being interrogated in his home. Orozco vs Texas effected interrogation procedures due to Orozco being interrogated inappropriately in his own bed, early in the morning, and without being aware to his rights which clearly states within the Self-Incrimination Clause that, “The Fifth Amendment 's right against self-incrimination permits an individual to refuse to disclose information that

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.

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

You are the newly appointed Chief of Police in a metropolitan community. Some members of your community are concerned about "excessive” use of force by the police. What strategies would you implement to ensured your community will be safe, excessive force will not be used by the police, and the constitutional rights of suspects will be honored.

If you were a suspect being questioned in a police station, which of your rights would you exercise and which would you waive? Which of your rights would you regard as the most important? Why? For many suspects the process of questioning in a police station is very stressful with 60%[1] confessing or making damaging admissions.

If you are in police custody, you must be advise of your constitutional right you remain silent and the right to counsel, before being questioned by an officer.. You must speak up and affirm your right to remain silent. If the officers failed to advise you your statements are not valid in court. Evidence found against you is

III. MR. MEYERS DID NOT VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS BECAUSE HIS MENTAL STATE PROHIBITED HIM FROM RATIONAL INTELLECT AND FREE WILL

Under Miranda, “interrogation” refers to all questions, actions, and statements made by the police that may provoke a suspect to incriminate themselves. Officers must be aware of what they say around suspects when the suspects have been mirandized and have