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.
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 called in to check the license plate, by now the car has been identified as having been stolen? Needless to say this could have been construed as a racial profiling, and in some cases a defense attorney might try that angle, but that is not the most important element of this scenario. What is considered important is what the defense lawyer will present in court, and how the prosecuting attorney will argue his case.
Facts of the Case
The officer in this instance, Jones, is said to have placed handcuffs on John, the suspect, but does not say that John is under arrest. Still, that is considered being in custody. Jones did not give John the Miranda warning, and according to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Dickerson...
United States) the Miranda law remains the law of the land -- but only in certain situations. According to the Ohio Bar Association, when there is a traffic stop, Miranda warnings "…to a suspect are not triggered in the following situations: roadside questioning of a motorist following a routine traffic stop…" (www.ohiobar.org).
But would this be considered "roadside questioning" when John has been handcuffed? Not very likely.
According to www.findlaw.com, the only time that police are required to issue a Miranda warning is a) when the suspect is in police custody; or b) the suspect is under interrogation. "If you aren't formally in police custody, and you aren't being interrogated, the police don't have to give you a Miranda warning" (www.findlaw.com). This means that police can use anything you say "…until those two requirements are fulfilled as evidence against you" (www.findlaw.com).
However, John could well be considered in police custody because it is defined as "anytime the police deprive you of your freedom of action…
Works Cited
Findlaw.com. "Miranda Warnings and Police Questioning." Retrieved March 12, 2014, from http://criminal.findlaw.com. 2012.
Ohio Bar Association. "Police Must Give Miranda Warnings." Retrieved March 12, 2014, from http://www.ohiobar.org.
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
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
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 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.