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.
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 ruling, police have been required to advise suspects in their custody that they have four specific rights before interrogating them. Failure to comply with the Miranda requirements constitutes grounds for excluding any confessions in response to police interrogation. According to Miranda, custodial suspects must be advised that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to legal representation prior to questioning, at no cost, if they are unable to pay for legal counsel. The modern importance of advising suspects, specifically, to the right to secure legal representation prior to questioning was highlighted just this year, by the Supreme Court ruling in Feller.
Since the landmark Miranda ruling, patrol officers are trained to read (or recite) the rights that it guarantees prior to interrogating subjects under arrest. Failure to do so properly compromises any evidence obtained in violation as per Massiah.
Unless the tainted evidence can be proven to have been discoverable by other means, it is excluded. (Brewer) Veteran law enforcement officers often say that Miranda has had absolutely no affect on their cases, unless they make the mistake of questioning a subject under arrest without properly advising him of his rights first.(CSU)
Miranda requires only that police advise persons under arrest of their constitutional right to remain silent before interrogating them. Contrary to popular belief, there is no requirement that any Miranda warnings be issued immediately upon arrest. As a practical matter though, patrol officers generally do so, simply...
The most likely scenario for violating Miranda arises where one officer places the subject under arrest without mirandizing him, fully intending to do so prior to questioning, and then a second officer obtains tainted evidence by questioning the subject under the assumption that the first officer has already fully advised him of his rights.
Because Miranda rights only apply to person in custody, it raises issues as to the definition of custody. The line of case law on point establishes that for the purposes of triggering Miranda, a subject is considered in official custody as of the moment that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to terminate any verbal exchange, and more importantly, to remove himself from the environment of his interrogators.(Orozko)
Similarly, because Miranda only applies to police "interrogation," cases have arisen requiring the Supreme Court to define "interrogation," most notably, the so- called "Christian Burial Case," where officers elicited a full confession from a person in their custody by informing him of information that they knew (or hoped) would appeal to the suspect's personal religious views, without ever posing any actual questions to him.(Brewer) Under this decision, police may not circumvent the intent or purpose of Miranda by engaging the suspect in any conversation designed to prompt a confession, regardless of whether or not the suspect is actually questioned in the traditional sense. A few years after Brewer, another case distinguished that situation from circumstances where the officers engaged in conversation between themselves without ever addressing the suspect, where it prompted a spontaneous confession on the part of the suspect overhearing their conversation. (Innis) Similarly, the Court refused to characterize police conduct as interrogation where a suspect was permitted to confess spontaneously to his wife in the presence of an officer who was recording the conversation. (Mauro)
The Miranda requirements have their philosophical critics, most notably, Chief
Justice Renquist…
References
California State University From the Incident Through the System Legally: Knowledge Base of Legal Concepts. (1999) Accessed March 11, 2004 at http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/criminal.justice/standard.htm
Dershowitz, A. (2002) Why Terrorism Works
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dershowitz, A. (2002) Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age
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,
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
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
Miranda Rights 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
Miranda Rights Should Be Available to Individuals Detained by Private Security Most people are familiar with so-called "Miranda Rights" that are named after the 1968 Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Fewer people actually understand what those rights actually are or why they are important. Specifically, Miranda does not actually require police to "read rights" to suspects or prohibit them from questioning suspects and arrested persons. Instead, Miranda imposes a