Judicial Process Miranda v. Arizona

Judicial Process

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was arguably one of the biggest decisions made by the Supreme Court in terms of how it affects and protects civil rights. The Miranda Rule states that police are required by law to notify all suspects of crime their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present during any interrogation (Holland 2011). Also, according to the Miranda Rule, if a person cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to them. These rights are the first things that police officers are mandated to say upon arresting a suspect and, of course, during questioning. These important rights have been tested in recent years. The Supreme Court has "carved out" certain exceptions to these rights, which will be discussed in this paper as well as how these exceptions have compromised the efficacy of the Miranda Rule.

In Moran v. Burbine (1985) the exception of an attorney waiver was created. This exception means that if a criminal suspect speaks to law enforcement after waiving his right to have counsel present and the criminal suspect's attorney has called and notified law enforcement that they are to tell the suspect to remain silent, law enforcement is not obligated to notify the suspect of his counsel's advice (NCWC 2003). Another exception to the Miranda Rule can be found in Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990), which states that Miranda is not necessary if standard police procedures are being followed (this relates specifically to booking procedures such as fingerprinting and photographing) (2003). In Oregon v. Elstad (1985) there is the exception of delayed warnings. For example, if a criminal suspect immediately confesses -- that is, before having their Miranda Rights read to them -- but later is read his or her rights at the police station and confesses again, the first confession cannot be used, but the second confession can (2003). In New York v. Harris (1990) it was decided that if the police enter a home unlawfully and make an arrest and then the criminal suspect confesses at the police station after having his Miranda Rights read to him, the so-called unlawful entry is no longer deemed unlawful (2003). Another example of an exception to the Miranda Rule concerns surreptitious questioning as in the case of Illinois v. Perkins (1990) (2003). In this case it was decided that a criminal suspect's 5th Amendment rights are not being violated if a suspect is speaking with an undercover police officer and incriminating information is given to the undercover police (2003). Essentially speaking, Miranda Rights are not necessary when a criminal suspect is not aware that he or she is talking to a law enforcement officer (2003).