The United States has given us a set of rules and rights that protect and serve the people of its country. The citizens of the United States are born with rights that some of us may or may not know, but the government and police are sworn to protect these rights with the upmost respect. The 1966 Miranda v. Arizona court case was one, if not, the most influential verdicts in this country. Our Fifth Amendment, which protects citizens from self-incrimination in the courts, supports the Miranda decision. In this paper, I will explain what the Miranda Warnings are and how they work. I will also explain my support for the Miranda Warning and what I learned in the durations of this paper and research that I may be able to use later in my criminal
…show more content…
Another interesting case and verdict supporting Miranda is the Dickerson v. United States, because it was the first case where someone tried to make Miranda unconstitutional “Miranda v Arizona governs the admissibility in federal state courts of statements given during custodial interrogation by the police. Any law passed by Congress seeking to overturn the Miranda decision is unconstitutional because it is a constitutional rule, not a rule of evidence” (Carmen & Walker 2015). In Kaupp v. Texas a young man was woken up in the middle of the night in little clothing, taken to the crime scene and then to the Sheriff’s office to be questioned, and would eventually confessing helping in the crime. Well, per Carmen and Walker (2015), his confession was inadmissible because the officers did not have any probable cause to question him in the first place. This case is important because the young man thought he was under arrest due to police officers telling him “we need to go and talk” in the middle of the night, so he did not think he was free to go. The police kept him until he confessed all while not being arrested or read …show more content…
The second to last case I would like to explain is Maryland v. Shatzer. Per Carmen and Walker (2015), this case is important because it supersedes the twenty-nine-year-old previous case of Edwards v. Arizona. In this case Shatzer was questioned in 2006 about a crime and decided to invoke his right to remain silent. Three years later new evidence was found and Shatzer was questioned again, this time around he gave up his Miranda Rights and incriminated himself and then asked for a lawyer. He argued that his rights had been violated because he was given his rights in 2003 and they questioned him again in 2006. The court decided that after fourteen days, it overcomes Edwards v. Arizona outcome and police can question again if rights are read yet again. Finally, the last case I want to discuss is J.D.B v. North Carolina, and following Carmen and Walker (2015) this case is important because it deals with the age of a child and how it must be considered when the Miranda warnings are given. A thirteen-year-old boy was taken
Another interesting case and verdict supporting Miranda is the Dickerson v. United States, because it was the first case where someone tried to make Miranda unconstitutional “Miranda v Arizona governs the admissibility in federal state courts of statements given during custodial interrogation by the police. Any law passed by Congress seeking to overturn the Miranda decision is unconstitutional because it is a constitutional rule, not a rule of evidence” (Carmen & Walker 2015). In Kaupp v. Texas a young man was woken up in the middle of the night in little clothing, taken to the crime scene and then to the Sheriff’s office to be questioned, and would eventually confessing helping in the crime. Well, per Carmen and Walker (2015), his confession was inadmissible because the officers did not have any probable cause to question him in the first place. This case is important because the young man thought he was under arrest due to police officers telling him “we need to go and talk” in the middle of the night, so he did not think he was free to go. The police kept him until he confessed all while not being arrested or read …show more content…
The second to last case I would like to explain is Maryland v. Shatzer. Per Carmen and Walker (2015), this case is important because it supersedes the twenty-nine-year-old previous case of Edwards v. Arizona. In this case Shatzer was questioned in 2006 about a crime and decided to invoke his right to remain silent. Three years later new evidence was found and Shatzer was questioned again, this time around he gave up his Miranda Rights and incriminated himself and then asked for a lawyer. He argued that his rights had been violated because he was given his rights in 2003 and they questioned him again in 2006. The court decided that after fourteen days, it overcomes Edwards v. Arizona outcome and police can question again if rights are read yet again. Finally, the last case I want to discuss is J.D.B v. North Carolina, and following Carmen and Walker (2015) this case is important because it deals with the age of a child and how it must be considered when the Miranda warnings are given. A thirteen-year-old boy was taken