Miranda v Arizona
384 U. S. 436 (1966)
FACTS:
Law enforcement officer arrested Ernesto Miranda for kidnapping and rape. He was then taken to a police station for questioning. Mr. Miranda was questioned for a few hours without his right being read to he signed a written confession admitting to the charges.
LEGAL QUESTION:
Are law enforcement officer obligated to inform arrested the suspect of their Fifth Amendment before they interrogate the defendants? Do the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extends to law enforcement interrogation of a suspect? Did law enforcement officer violate Mr. Miranda Constitutional Rights of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments? Should confessions or statements attained from a suspect interrogated …show more content…
Justice that dissented in the case was Justice Clark J, Justice White J, Justice Harlan, and Justice Stewart JJ. They argued; the was not have enough evidence that required to add a new rule or to expand the Fifth Amendment as the majority believe needed to be added. Justices also noted that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution apply to interrogations. The second dissent written by Justice John Harlan argues that the Due Process Clauses should apply. J. Harlan further argues that the Fifth Amendment rule against self-incrimination was never intended to forbid law enforcement officer from pressuring criminals against self-incrimination (www.americanbar.org). Justice Clark said he is proud of the law enforcement officers (Samaha).
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE:
The Supreme Court with the majority decision; created The Miranda warnings “Bright-Line” rules to prevent law enforcement officer from forcing a confession from the suspect while still allowing police to put pressure on them. Whenever law enforcement officer conducts a custody interrogation, it needs to provide the defendants the Miranda Rights warnings. At the time the Justice created this rule they were too many defendants’ constitutional rights violation not knowing their civil rights. They also provide guidance on the meaning of custody (Samaha).
384 U. S. 436 (1966)
FACTS:
Law enforcement officer arrested Ernesto Miranda for kidnapping and rape. He was then taken to a police station for questioning. Mr. Miranda was questioned for a few hours without his right being read to he signed a written confession admitting to the charges.
LEGAL QUESTION:
Are law enforcement officer obligated to inform arrested the suspect of their Fifth Amendment before they interrogate the defendants? Do the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extends to law enforcement interrogation of a suspect? Did law enforcement officer violate Mr. Miranda Constitutional Rights of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments? Should confessions or statements attained from a suspect interrogated …show more content…
Justice that dissented in the case was Justice Clark J, Justice White J, Justice Harlan, and Justice Stewart JJ. They argued; the was not have enough evidence that required to add a new rule or to expand the Fifth Amendment as the majority believe needed to be added. Justices also noted that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution apply to interrogations. The second dissent written by Justice John Harlan argues that the Due Process Clauses should apply. J. Harlan further argues that the Fifth Amendment rule against self-incrimination was never intended to forbid law enforcement officer from pressuring criminals against self-incrimination (www.americanbar.org). Justice Clark said he is proud of the law enforcement officers (Samaha).
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE:
The Supreme Court with the majority decision; created The Miranda warnings “Bright-Line” rules to prevent law enforcement officer from forcing a confession from the suspect while still allowing police to put pressure on them. Whenever law enforcement officer conducts a custody interrogation, it needs to provide the defendants the Miranda Rights warnings. At the time the Justice created this rule they were too many defendants’ constitutional rights violation not knowing their civil rights. They also provide guidance on the meaning of custody (Samaha).