Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
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 against them in a court of law. ("Berghuis v. Thompkins" 2009) ("Berghuis v. Thompkins," 2012) ("Miranda v. Arizona," 1966) (Dempsey, 2010)
Conclusion
Clearly, the Berghuis v. Thompkins decision will have a lasting impact on the way the police question criminal suspects. This is because there was confusion about when a suspect is invoking and rejecting their constitutional...
In the past, the court determined that when this occurs there are implied protections which are in place. According to Butler v. United States, this is based upon non-verbal signals the defendant is providing.
When they answer one question, the individual has waived these rights. This means that the police can use any information collected as evidence against the suspect. The reason why, is because they clearly know what is happening and have changed their mind during the course of the interview. This is illustrating how these protections are continually evolving from the suspects reactions during the interview.
References
Berghuis v. Thompkins. (2010). Cornell School of Law. Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1470.ZS.html
Berghuis v. Thompkins. (2012). Oyez. Retrieved from: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1470
Berghuis v. Thompkins. (2009). U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved from: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf
Miranda v. Arizona. (1966). Cornell School of Law. Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZS.html
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
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,
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.
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
Miranda Issues in Law Enforcement In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Ernesto Miranda, who had been arrested by Arizona police on suspicion of rape. The suspect confessed to the crime after two hours of questioning by police while in their custody, without ever having been advised of his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination or his 6th Amendment right to legal representation before such questioning. Ever since the Miranda
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