The Law Of Police Custody

936 Words Dec 12th, 2015 4 Pages
Mirandizing, Miranda, or the Miranda Warning as so often stated is a formal police warning that is required to be given to suspects in police custody. Mirandizing is done before suspects are questioned to make certain that know their rights under the U.S. Constitution. Legally a suspect can use these rights at any time that they are being interviewed by law enforcement officials. ("Miranda" Rights, Nov.2015)
As a result of Miranda, anyone in police custody must be told four things before being question:
1) You have the right to remain silent.
2) Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
3) You have the right to an attorney.
4) If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

Without a Miranda warning any report might be inadmissible at trial under the exclusionary rule. (Legal Information Institute) The exclusionary rule states that evidence used in violation of the defendant 's constitutional rights can be inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. (Law Cornell)
Miranda v. Arizona, was a landmark case, with the outcome that criminal suspects being interrogated must be notified of their rights before the police questionings. (Findlaw)
The case of Miranda v. Arizona occurred on March 13, 1963. Ernesto Miranda was a suspect connected to a kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl. (Findlaw) The victim said that she had been abducted, driven to the desert and was then raped. She was given a polygraph test, but…
Open Document