Miranda V. Arizon A Case Study

Improved Essays
The Miranda warnings originated in the Court ruling of Miranda v. Arizona and became mandated to read to a suspect who is in custody and is going to be interrogated (Hall, 2015). In order for Miranda to apply, the court must determine several factors. The court must determine if the suspect was in custody, if an interrogation transpired, if the suspect’s statement was in direct response to an interrogation, if the government used the statement for prosecutorial reasons to prove guilt, and if “the need for Miranda protections outweighs other governmental needs” (Galloway Jr., 1988, p. 797). If all of these factors were determined to be valid in the case in question then the court must determine if the arresting agency were in compliance of

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Case

    • 174 Words
    • 1 Pages

    On June 13, the court came to the decision on the Miranda vs. Arizona case saying that all suspects must be told what their rights are before they are arrested. On March 2, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was deliberatly interrogated after being arrested for robbery, rape, and kidnap. . However, he was not informed of his rights before being questioned and Miranda confessed to robbery, rape, and kidnap. Mentally unstable and alone, miranda was without an attorney at trial and the prosecution formed their case off of the fact that Miranda confessed earlier. Sentenced with 20-30 years in prison, Miranda tried to convince the Arizona Supreme Court that his confession was given unconstitutionally and it was unfair, but the punishment still remained.…

    • 174 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The supreme court justices Samuel Alito answered to this case that Mr. Salina didn't have the right to remain silent. Mr. Salina was free to leave, which didn't insert his Miranda rights and he had therefore no right to remain silent. Justices Samuel Alito stated that Mr. Salina´s should have affirmatively invoked his rights, because without Mr. Salina´s having a lawyer or being told the Miranda rights he should have been more affirmative about his invoking. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html) Salinas v. Texas is demonstrating the Miranda rules in a way where if the rules doesn´t apply the questioned from the beginning the Miranda rights doesn't apply either.…

    • 757 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Supreme Court Decision: Gonzales v. Raich The case of Gonzales v. Raich begins with the passing of the Compassionate Use Act, a California law that allows marijuana to be used medically. Angel Raich’s doctor recommended the use of medical marijuana for medicinal purposes; however, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents found the growing of Raich’s six marijuana plants to be a violation of of the federal law under the Controlled Substances Act. Passed using the interstate commerce clause, the act stated that possession of drugs was illegal, and did not recognize the use of marijuana medically.…

    • 459 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case I have chosen to write about is Miranda v. Arizona. This was a case in Arizona where Mr. Miranda was arrested at his home and taken by police into custody to a police station where he was then identified by a complaining witness. Once, he was identified he was interrogated by two police officers for about two hours and as a result to this long interrogation he signed a written confession to the crime. Therefore, once the case went to trial his oral and written confessions were read to the jury. He was then found guilty of kidnapping as well as rape and sentence to 20-30 years’ imprisonment on each count (uscourt.gov. com.…

    • 754 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Miranda warning includes what rights we have when we are being arrested or interrogated. Police officers or other law enforcement officers must tell a person their Miranda rights during an arrest. After the warning is given to someone being arrested, the person also has the right to speak to an attorney. These rights became a part of the Fifth and Six amendments that already existed in our U.S. Constitution.…

    • 484 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    • 1577 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Miranda vs Arizona In the years following Miranda v. Arizona, many changes were made to the verdict. The Omnibus Crime and Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 declared that if a suspect voluntarily confessed to a crime within six hours after his or her arrest, this confession could be used as valid evidence in a trial, even if the suspect had not been informed of his or her Miranda rights. The passage of this act was one of the first major modifications to the initial decision. Additionally, there were many other cases that followed Miranda v. Arizona that altered the Miranda decision.…

    • 1577 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the early 1960’s four men were arrested on different crimes.. In the police department those men confessed to their crimes without ever being told their rights, mainly that the Fifth Amendment Sixth Amendment. The confessions were used in court, and it became a question of whether those men’s constitutional rights had been violated. The question was answered in the Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona.…

    • 1601 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    1. Explain the rationale behind the Miranda decision. 2. Do you believe the Miranda warning is still a valid concept? Why?…

    • 321 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona is one of the most crucial U.S. Supreme Court cases ever held in the United States. The case causes the Supreme Court to redefine law enforcement procedures before interrogations. The decision that was reached by the Supreme Court addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. All of these cases are similar in the fact that there was a custodial interrogation where the suspect was not properly informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and have a presence of an attorney. Additionally, in all of the cases besides Stewart v. California, the conviction was affirmed without any belief that there was a violation of constitutional rights ("Facts and Case").…

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Newton (2004) 369 F.3d 659; see Allen v. Roe (2002) 305 F.3d 1046 (where the objectively reasonable need be based on what the officer knew at the time of questioning); see also United States v. Jones (2001) 154 F.2d 617 (likewise, holding the public exception applicable where police knew the suspect had a firearm in the apartment unattended with children present). In determining the objectively reasonable need, courts consider whether the defendant might have or recently have had a weapon and that someone other than the police might gain access to that weapon and inflict harm. (United States v. Williams (2007) 483 F.3d 425.) Accordingly, Miranda warnings are not required where there’s an objectively reasonable need in protecting the police or public from immediate danger and statements stemming from custodial interrogation must not be…

    • 572 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In a 5-4 decision for Miranda, it was ruled that anyone convicted must be told their rights, which we know refer to as Miranda Rights that must be told to anyone taken into custody. This is backed by the 5th Amendment. 5. Bush v. Gore 531 US 98 (2000) The petitioner was George W. Bush and the respondent was Albert Gore.…

    • 759 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Miranda Rights help protect citizens fifth and sixth amendments. The fifth amendment protects citizens from being forced to be witness against himself, while the sixth amendment assures that those arrested have a right to a public and speedy trial (Doc E). Together, the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination and the sixth amendment assures that those arrested can not be held in jail indefinitely. The Miranda Warning read by officers specifically states that after one is made aware of their Miranda Rights, any confession or statements can be used against oneself lawfully (Doc J). Consequently, the Miranda ruling assures that one is fully aware of their rights and are also aware of the consequences if they choose to self-incriminate after being read their…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The three parts of the decision went as followed. The first was the Fifth Amendment privilege (which states that no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury). In this instance, Miranda was basically compelled to be a witness against himself and his confession was obtained in a way that did not meet the constitutional standards. What was also a large factor to this part of the case was that he was not offered or given the right to an attorney to consult with during the interrogation process with the…

    • 1106 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    J. Cecelia Shaulis April 13, 2015 Pols-Y 211 Dalecki Exam 3- Miranda v. Arizona One of the biggest players in law interpretation and policy-making is the judiciary system. While the other two branches of government have some control over the judiciary system through checks and balances, the federal courts have a great deal of power in the form of judicial review. Judicial review is the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.…

    • 1238 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The police question suspects and witnesses for two reasons, to gather information about the crime and to try to get a suspect to confess if they believe the individual is guilty. This is where Miranda rights are important. The Constitution guarantees certain rights including the following. The right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney, either one that is appointed by the state or one that is privately hired. To start with the first line of the Miranda statement “You have the right to remain silent”.…

    • 1883 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays