The Supreme Court however, should not reverse their ruling on Miranda rights, because they are Constitutional rights that every citizen has. The majority of the time, criminals who are less educated will not know of their rights and therefore the institution of Miranda rights is crucial for every suspect to have a fair and equitable treatment from police officers. In order to circumvent Miranda right restrictions an investigator should focus

Criminology In the first place it is odd that the dispatcher did not have a better description of the vehicle that was reported stolen. And why would a young Hispanic male driving a late model "foreign car" -- in this case, a BMW -- be a suspect, since the officer doesn't know a license number or make or model of the car? And how is it that when the officer has

Miranda Rights To most people, the case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is synonymous with the Miranda warnings given to accused criminals. People understand that Miranda means that a criminal defendant has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Although Miranda warnings do inform defendants of those rights, the Miranda decision is not what created those rights. In fact, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments,

Other examples in which the Court of the United States notes the Constitution had been violated because the defendant was not guaranteed aid of counsel or legal advisement include the case of Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 314, No. 326. This again is a case in which the Petitioner was accused and the interrogation was set up to make the Petitioner admit his criminal actions so that incriminating

S. Supreme Court). Following this case, police departments were now required to inform every arrested person of their rights under the law, now called a "Miranda Warning." Many conservatives believed that it was unfair and unnecessary to inform suspects of their rights, rights they should know if an American Citizen. Even President Richard Nixon believed that Miranda made it easier on criminals and harder on police. This view held that the

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the prosecution may not use statements without the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination (Summary pp). The decision reads, "the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer