"You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You also have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you.” These words sound familiar, right? If you have ever watched a television show where someone has being arrested for a crime, then you have more than likely heard these words. This is one of the most frequent and a widespread statement that is said throughout law enforcement. These types of statements are called minimum required Miranda warnings (Worrall, 2017). Miranda warnings originated from the highly significant case, Miranda v. Arizona, (384 U.S. 436 [1966]. In this ruling, the Miranda rule was acknowledged
…show more content…
There are two requirements, needed for Miranda to apply. The first requirement needed for Miranda to apply is custody. Custody can be defined as the apprehension or detainment of an individual by law enforcement in which the individual has been dispossessed of their free will. For instance, a custodial situation such as an individual being questioned in their home can arise to the level of custody (Worrall, 2017). In the case of Orozco v. Texas (394 U.S. 324 [1969]), the Supreme Court decided that custody existed when a man was awaken in his home by several police officers for questioning and was not free to go. Furthermore, custody is not sufficient enough by itself for Miranda to apply. The second requirement is interrogation. Interrogation as defined by Miranda is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers (Worrall, 2017). For example, if a suspect is placed in custody and brought in for questioning, a series of “guilt-seeking” questions are asked with the intent to elicit a response (Worrall, 2017). Interrogation is not the same as general questioning when a crime has taken place. The two requirements combined equate to custodial interrogation and when neither custody nor interrogation occurs, Miranda does not …show more content…
In the event that the safety of the public is at risk or in danger, no Miranda warnings are required – at least in the short term (Worrall, 2017). This is also known as the exception to the Miranda rule and was a very controversial issue. With attention to a landmark case New York v. Quarles (467 U.S. 649 [1984]), several police officers entered a supermarket after receiving information that a man with a gun (Quarles) had entered the supermarket. The officers located the man (later identified as Quarles) and ordered him to stop and put his hands above his head. The man was then frisked and a gun holster was found on him. The officers questioned the man about the whereabouts of the gun, which he gave the information on where the gun was located. He was then arrested and read his Miranda warnings. In this case the court decided that the Miranda warnings need not be given if the safety of the public is endangered (Worrall, 2017). However, it must first be determined by the appropriate test if threat to public safety exists. This test is called the objective test. An objective test is one based on what a reasonable person, in the same circumstances would
There are two requirements, needed for Miranda to apply. The first requirement needed for Miranda to apply is custody. Custody can be defined as the apprehension or detainment of an individual by law enforcement in which the individual has been dispossessed of their free will. For instance, a custodial situation such as an individual being questioned in their home can arise to the level of custody (Worrall, 2017). In the case of Orozco v. Texas (394 U.S. 324 [1969]), the Supreme Court decided that custody existed when a man was awaken in his home by several police officers for questioning and was not free to go. Furthermore, custody is not sufficient enough by itself for Miranda to apply. The second requirement is interrogation. Interrogation as defined by Miranda is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers (Worrall, 2017). For example, if a suspect is placed in custody and brought in for questioning, a series of “guilt-seeking” questions are asked with the intent to elicit a response (Worrall, 2017). Interrogation is not the same as general questioning when a crime has taken place. The two requirements combined equate to custodial interrogation and when neither custody nor interrogation occurs, Miranda does not …show more content…
In the event that the safety of the public is at risk or in danger, no Miranda warnings are required – at least in the short term (Worrall, 2017). This is also known as the exception to the Miranda rule and was a very controversial issue. With attention to a landmark case New York v. Quarles (467 U.S. 649 [1984]), several police officers entered a supermarket after receiving information that a man with a gun (Quarles) had entered the supermarket. The officers located the man (later identified as Quarles) and ordered him to stop and put his hands above his head. The man was then frisked and a gun holster was found on him. The officers questioned the man about the whereabouts of the gun, which he gave the information on where the gun was located. He was then arrested and read his Miranda warnings. In this case the court decided that the Miranda warnings need not be given if the safety of the public is endangered (Worrall, 2017). However, it must first be determined by the appropriate test if threat to public safety exists. This test is called the objective test. An objective test is one based on what a reasonable person, in the same circumstances would