The Law Of Police Custody

The case Miranda v. Arizona that took place in 1963 changed the way police officer question/interrogate their suspect. Back in those days, police officers used to get away with interrogating suspects without informing them of their constitutional rights until the Miranda case came about. Concerning the Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that by detaining suspects before questioning they must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination (“Miranda v. Arizona,” 2006). In the year 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. The police officers that arrested him begin to question him without informing him of his constitutional rights to an attorney

Miranda v. Arizona was a case where Ernesto Miranda was accused of raping a women. At the time of his arrest he did not know his rights and that he had the right to remain silent and get a lawyer. He confessed orally and in a written form, but he never knew his

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.

The case of Miranda v Arizona concerned the issue of whether police interrogatory practices on persons without notifying such persons on their protection against self-incrimination and their right to counsel amounted to the violation of the 5th Amendment. In an unusual decision of 5-4, the court ruled that incriminating evidence stated by the accused cannot be admissible in a court

Miranda Warnings reaffirmed the rights afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: all U.S. citizens have the right to remain silent so as not to incriminate themselves, as well as the right to due process in a court of law before a jury of their peers.

Starting an argument with, challenging, or baiting the suspect. This statement would be considered involuntary because they communicated in a certain way that got the defendant to release a statement

The last fifty years of American law have changed drastically due to numerous “landmark” court cases. For those who have studied these landmark cases, Miranda v. Arizona is one of the most crucial of these cases. Until the Miranda v. Arizona trial of 1966, when a person was arrested, they were not given a fair awareness of their rights as a citizen, which often times resulted in the self incrimination or unknowingly admitting to guilt (McBride). The Miranda decision provided a constitutional and reasonable way of allowing the suspect to fully embrace their fifth and sixth amendment rights without any form of admission of guilt.

Due process of law: this is what ensures equal protection of life, liberty, and property to all citizens. The United State of America relies on this idea to create a perfect union. Law enforcement officers are vigilant in accommodating regulations that have been a part of the United States since the Bill of Rights was produced in 1791 which guarantees that no one can be convicted of a crime without due process of the law. Crime was escalating and public safety became a growing concern during the Sixties. In order to raise their conviction rate and promote citizen’s protection, police began to treat suspects harsher and unjustly. As a result, the theory of “Law and Order” became popular, as it promoted the view that crime must be dealt with harshly to discourage citizens from infringing upon the law. The rising aggressiveness of law enforcement made it necessary for the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of the system of interrogation and conviction. The way in which citizens were arrested and convicted of crimes was indefinitely changed when Chief Justice Earl Warren was presented the case Miranda v Arizona in 1966, in which a defendant was convicted without being told of his civil rights. The Miranda v Arizona case was a significant Landmark Supreme Court case because it set universal standards for protecting suspects’ rights and reflected the 1960s concern with human rights.

Between February and March of 1966 the Supreme Court case, Miranda vs. Arizona took place (Worrall, 2015). In this case, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona because he was accused of raping a woman. Miranda was interrogated by officers for two hours before confessing both written and orally. He was charged with kidnapping and rape and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. While this case is the main thing upholding the Supreme Court’s ruling, there were three other cases backing their decision – Vignera vs. New York, Westover vs. United States, and California vs. Stewart. Based on these three cases, the Supreme Court upheld that before any questioning a suspect must be aware that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to them before interrogation (Facts and Case Summary – Miranda v Arizona). This ruling has been implied in all criminal cases since and anytime these rights are not read to a suspect they are acquitted. Miranda vs. Arizona has been the face of a very big change in the way the criminal justice system is run and will continue to be for many years to come.

The Supreme Court ruled a few decades ago that people had to be made aware of their rights. At the time, many individuals under arrest submitted to interrogations without a lawyer because they were unaware of their legal rights. Now, a Miranda warning is required

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.

e foundations for Miranda v. Arizona (1966) were laid in Malloy v. Hogan (1964) which applied the privilege against self-incrimination to state criminal proceedings and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) which allowed consultation with an attorney about the privilege against self-incrimination" (Anonymous, 2004). However, prior to this decision, law enforcement officials did not have to ensure that criminal suspects were aware of their rights prior to engaging in an interrogation.

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

“Movie and TV shows often depict crime with a police officer handcuffing a suspect and warning him that he has the right to remain silent. While those warnings may appear clear-cut, almost 1 million criminal cases may be compromised each year in the United States at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association.”(Rogers, 2011) The Miranda warning, also known as the Miranda rights, is important and in place to inform people of their rights upon arrest. Everyone should have knowledge and a decent understanding of their rights.

The Miranda v Arizona case was combined with three other similar cases. When the Supreme Court handed down the decision 5-4 in Miranda's favor, the resulting rights afforded to those being questioned or detained by police became popularly known as Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights must include the following as described by Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren: