The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

1695 Words7 Pages
For centuries, individuals that were apprehended by the police did not know that they had rights when being arrested. Past cases like Miranda v. Arizona helped shaped policies on the debates on basic human rights when being arrested. A police officer must have substantial reason to arrest you and read you your Miranda Rights. Specific actions, like traffic stops or a law enforcement official marching up to you and inquiring you questions are not defined as police custody. If you feel as though something you say will harm your case more than help you, then just remain silent. Once law enforcement authorities begin inquiring questions that may suggest entanglement in a crime an investigation has initiated (Howard & Rich, (2006).
In the
…show more content…
Miranda had been identified by several other women, one stating that Miranda had robbed her at knife point. The police informed Miranda that he had been identified by the women. Miranda was taken into custody and interrogated by the police for two hours prior to confessing to the crimes. Miranda made a statement in writing that he was making the confession voluntarily and with complete awareness of his constitutional powers.”
At the same time of the interrogation, law enforcement authorities did not inform Miranda about his Fifth Amendment protection opposing self-incrimination of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The case went to trial in an Arizona state court and the prosecutor used the confession as documentation in opposition to Miranda, who was convicted and punished to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda 's attorney petition the Arizona Supreme Court, which sustained the conviction. Then he petitioned to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it along with four similar cases. In taking the case, the court had to figure out the role law enforcement authorities have in defending the rights of the indicted, protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.” Although officers initiated that Miranda was not aware of his constitutional powers to have an attorney present and that no attorney was present, Miranda 's confession was introduced into evidence. This case recommended that individuals
Open Document