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 will be appointed to represent him" (Summary pp). If the individual indicates that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease, until an attorney is present, and if an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney, the burden rests on the Government to show that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel (Summary pp).

Since the 1966 decision, many exceptions to the Miranda exclusionary rule have been made, and a violation of the Miranda ruling….

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, defendants already had those rights. However, many defendants were either ignorant of their rights or unsure how to exercise them. hat Miranda did was require the police to inform suspects of their rights prior to interrogation. hat post-Miranda case law has established is that failure by the police to follow the procedures established in Miranda can invalidate the results of otherwise legal confessions.

To truly understand the Miranda decision, it is important to understand pre-Miranda criminal law. To do so, it….

The Court also stated that if an individual indicates at any time that he wants to remain silent, the interrogation must stop; any statement taken after this time is the product of compulsion. Silence can never constitute a valid waiver.
Dissent: Justice Clark's dissented in three of the decisions, but concurred in one. He found that police coercion was not sufficiently established to justify the extent of the majority's decision. Clark would continue to evaluate Fifth Amendment waivers under a totality of the circumstances approach.

Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White dissented. They found that the majority's required warnings would not prevent coercion, because officers could still lie about waivers, but to seek a Utopian "voluntariness" for confessions, which is impractical in the real world. They believed that the Court had already established an "elaborate, sophisticated, and sensitive approach to admissibility of confessions." (384 U.S. 436, 509). They believed that the Fifth….

Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
This case was first brought in district court against Ernest Miranda after a rape investigation led authorities to question him. Under questioning, Miranda admitted to raping a young girl and signed a written confession. The case was heard in Phoenix district court and Miranda was adjudicated as guilty. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected Miranda's appeal, finding him guilty once again. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed.

Ernesto Miranda was accused of raping a young woman. The woman described her assailant and his vehicle, and using this information, the police traced the vehicle description to Miranda. Miranda also fit the physical description of the attacker, and was arrested and questioned. Under questioning, Miranda signed a written confession. His district trial summarily convicted him and he was sentenced to thirty to forty years in prison.

Miranda's lawyer appealed to the state supreme court on the grounds that his client….

Corruption exists within all aspects of government, and has since early civilization. While many steps have been taken to prevent such corruption in other areas of the world, the United States has recently introduced legislation that has the potential to actually increase the amount of possible corruption, particularly in reference to police officers "enforcing" the law. This paper will discuss the U.S.A. Patriot Act and its follow-up legislation, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, nicknamed Patriot II, and will discuss why these legislative measures actually serve to increase corruption. Additionally, this paper will discuss the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for limiting the corruption issues made possible by the Patriot Acts.
One of the sections of the Patriot Act that has potential problems in relation to overzealous law enforcement is Section 215, which modified the previous rules on record searches. Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement no longer needs an individual's consent, nor do….

Case Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested and locked up in a Phoenix police station on March 13, 1963 where he was identified by a complaining witness (Samaha, 2012). Law enforcement officers took him to an Investigation Room where he was questioned before the two officers came out with a written confession that he signed. During the questioning, Miranda was not notified that he had a right to an attorney and was notified of the need for voluntary confession after making his oral confession. The written confession was then admitted into evidence at his trial before a jury despite objections from the defense counsel. The court then found him guilty of kidnapping and rape and sentenced him to 20 to 30 years in prison for each count, with these sentences running simultaneously. This ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court of Arizona following Mirandas appeal on the basis that his constitutional….

Miranda ights
Scenario #1

In 1966 the Miranda v. Arizona case ushered in the era of police informing suspects of their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. This case is universally accepted as critical to protecting the rights of suspects while in the custody of the police, however, the impact on the effectiveness of the police is not usually discussed. In a 1998 study John Donohoe discussed the empirical evidence which supported the argument that the imposition of Miranda rights significantly hampered the effectiveness of the police to clear cases. But while he admitted that there were statistical drops in the clearing of cases by police, he could not make a direct connection between that and Miranda. (Donohoe, 1998) In effect, the imposing of the Miranda rights warning does not impede the police and their attempts to catch criminals.

What the Miranda rights warning does is lessen the likelihood that….

Miranda ule's effectiveness in America today [...] why the Miranda is well tailored to guard against constitutional violations, and will present an argument for the Miranda rule. The Miranda ule, first adopted in 1966, is still a contentious ruling in today's criminal justice system. While some critics of the rule feel it is not a deterrent to coercion of information from a suspect, most experts believe the Miranda ule was created with a solid foundation to help ensure a suspect's rights are not violated and the information from any suspect is admissible in court. The Miranda ule guards the criminal justice system just as well as it guards against rights violations and because of this, it is vital to the quick and efficient trying of cases. The Miranda ule is controversial, but it is a necessity in modern policing, and it helps both the suspect and the police.
The Miranda….

Dershowitz and others have pointed out, rightfully, that Miranda principles were designed to prevent the use at trial of evidence obtained improperly and that the prevention of mass casualties may constitute a sufficiently important goal to suspend certain constitutional issues. In that regard, even the terrorist is entitled to the same protections against self-incrimination and prosecution using illegally-obtained evidence of guilt. However, the legitimate need to protect the public from wide-scale death and destruction may be another matter entirely.

Dershowitz (2002) outlined the principles for designing a "torture warrant" in connection with which authorities may interrogate suspects known to possess information necessary to prevent mass casualties and loss of innocent life in imminent terrorist attacks through means ordinarily strictly prohibited by the Constitution and the laws applicable to all fifty American states. The fundamental distinction is that those efforts would relate to securing information for the purposes of preventing mass casualties….

The fact that Fred was eventually allowed to leave is less important in that determination than Fred's state of mind and reasonable belief about whether or not he was still free to leave once the police informed him that he was actually a suspect in Wilma's murder (Dershowitz, 2002; Zalman, 2008).
Search and Seizure and Unlawful Arrest Issues:

The fact pattern does not make clear whether or not the police actually conducted a search of Fred's home or were merely "bluffing" to induce cooperation from Fred. Assuming that no such unwarranted search was actually being conducted, there was no impermissible search and seizure of Fred's home. Provided Fred still (reasonably) believed that he was free to terminate the interview and leave when he volunteered the confession, that evidence should not be excluded under Miranda (and related) doctrine and principles.

However, the police did seize Fred's vehicle, which was an impermissible violation of….

Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, 129 S. Ct. 2079, 173 L. Ed. 2D 955
Jesse Montejo and Jerry Moore were interrupted during a burglary by the owner of the residence, Lewis Ferrari (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009). Montejo was picked up for questioning the next day and after waiving his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436, 1966), admitted to shooting and killing Lewis Ferrari during the burglary. When Montejo was arraigned two days later in court, he stood mute as the court appointed counsel.

A few hours after the arraignment, police detectives visited Montejo at the jail (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009). During the end of the ensuing discussion, Montejo waved his Miranda rights and agreed to take them to the murder weapon. During the trip to locate the murder weapon, Montejo wrote a letter of apology to the victim's widow.

The defense attempted to suppress the letter of apology during the….

Under U.S. v. Butler, the courts can make interpretations as to if a suspect has invoked these rights based upon their reactions to the questions and body language they are using. ("Berghuis v. Thompkins" 2009) ("Berghuis v. Thompkins," 2012) ("Miranda v. Arizona," 1966) (Dempsey, 2010)
In real world situations, this means that the basic rights are continually evolving based upon the questions and answers that are provided to law enforcement. The moment the suspect does not say anything, is the point when implied protections are being utilized. Once they begin answering questions is when they will have revoked these protections. This is because they decided to respond to one question. The fact that they chose to do this, is illustrating that the individual knows what is happening to them and is fully aware of their surroundings. As a result, any kind of information they provide can be used as evidence….

To prove either side of the argument, the sensitivity and impact needs to be assessed -- there is no blanket rule of everything being transparent, or everything being private; it is dependent upon the sensitivity and overall impact of the issue at hand.
3. ources: Hunold, C. And B. Peters. (2004). "Bureaucratic Discretion and Deliverative Democracy." Transformation in Governance. IGI Publishing; Holzer, M. And K. Yang. (April 1, 2005). "Administrative Discretion in a Turbulent Time: An Introduction. Public Administration Quarterly. Cited in: www.highbeamresearch.com.

4. How does a cost-benefit analysis used in the determination of due process?

Using, for example, Miranda v Arizona, a cost-benefit analysis is used to determine due-process in the sense of the decision's impact on law enforcement and the community needs to be taken into consideration before a ruling of using Miranda, 5th Amendment Rights, and basic procedures. The Rehnquist Court's decision in the idea of cost-benefit, despite Justice….

2004 case of Missouri v. eibert that was appealed to the U.. upreme Court to generate a new rule prohibiting a specific practice often used by, and taught to police officers. That technique involved a two-tiered interrogation strategy expressly designed and intended to circumvent the Fifth Amendment constitutional protections guaranteed by the Miranda rule. The way the strategy worked was that police would deliberately delay reading Miranda warnings to question suspects for the purpose of acquiring information about their culpable conduct. Afterwards, they would Mirandize the same subject and then re-open the discussion, referencing that information. The suspects invariably made admissions of guilt after being Mirandized because they knew they had already provided the information and were unaware of the legal distinction of statements "inside" and "outside" of Miranda warnings.
The first admission is absolutely inadmissible. At the time it was made, the suspect was already participating in a custodial….

(Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968)
Duncan clearly had his rights violated when he asked for a jury trial and did not receive one. Especially given that the conviction was held on conflicting and limited witness testimony that was likely highly charged and differential. In the end is it possible that battery occurred simply because the defendant touched the other individual and yet it is unlikely that intent to do harm, an aspect of battery could have been proven in a court of law without a reasonable doubt.

The outcomes of this case are argued in favor and against where some state that the ruling required states to reduce minimum mandatory sentencing in petty crimes while others argue that it establishes the federal minimum of petty designation across the states. In general it is true that this ruling was conservative in that the Supreme Court waived the right and desire to strictly rule….