The Ernesto Miranda Case Study: How Miranda Warning Became an Important Part of Law Enforcement
1600 Words6 Pages
In 1966 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in the case of Miranda v. Arizona that laid the groundwork for the "Miranda" warning police have been required to read to persons taken into custody before they begin questioning (Siegel, 2010, p.339). Since that time, the concept of Miranda rights has been common knowledge among both law enforcement officers and criminal defendants. These rights have been portrayed on television and in the movies, enabling many people who have never been arrested to recite them from memory. However, the controversy over whether such rights are even necessary today still rages on and many law enforcement officials lament the fact that they must continue to "Mirandize" everyone they arrest, potentially limiting the confessions they receive. The courts have continued to hold that being informed of one's rights is essential before he is questioned in regards to any criminal behavior and that failure to do so is tantamount to denying those Constitutional rights.
The Miranda Case
In 1963 police in Phoenix, Arizona arrested Ernesto Miranda and took him to a police station without charging him with a crime or even telling him why he was taken into custody (Burgan, 2007, p.10). Eventually the police took him to a small room where they proceeded to ask him about the robbery of a young woman named Barbara Roe and the robbery and rape of a woman identified only as "Jane Doe" to protect her privacy (Burgan, 2007,