The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

907 Words4 Pages
Under the U. S. Const. amend. IV, states that an individual has the right not to answer or feel compelled to answer if they believe the answer may be self-incrementing. [1] This is under the premise that speaking may implicate oneself in a crime, and the speech obtained used against them in a court of law as a result of an interrogation. While the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, guidelines had to be established to prohibit officers from becoming overbearing, coercive or using psychological polys to obtain a confession from possibly innocent people. [2] Therefore, before an interrogation of an arrestee can ensue, Maranda warnings must be provided. If a Miranda warning is not provided and a waiver obtained, it is possible that any statements made may be inadmissible in court. [3] The Miranda was established in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, in which the petitioner gave officers incriminating evidences during an interrogation without notifying him of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. [4] During the interrogation process, Mr. Miranda was never notified of his rights, yet he signed a statement that he was aware of his right and also signed a confession. [5] In doing so, Miranda was convicted. In appeal, the question by the Supreme Court was whether or not officials are required to notify the arrestee of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination prior to an interrogation.
Holding in

More about The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

Get Access