Miranda Vs Arizona

The issue, concerning what has become known as Miranda Rights, began in 1963. It was called a "pre-interrogation warning". It was not called a Miranda Warning until after the US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 when Ernest Miranda was taken into custody, by the Phoenix Police Department, as a suspect for the kidnapping and rape of a girl. The Phoenix PD arrested him and questioned him for two hours. He confessed to the crime he was accused of committing and wrote a confession statement in which he described the details of the crime. He was tried, convicted and sentenced. He appealed and three years later, his appeal had reached the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s ruling initiated procedural requirements which law enforcement officials must follow and overturned E. Miranda’s conviction. Miranda v. Arizona caused an uproar as it forced police to notify suspects of their rights and the process of being questioned. Ernest Miranda was tried again and the prosecution team could not us his confession. A former girlfriend testified that he had confided in her about the rape and kidnapping that he committed. After that he was paroled and was an on-going offender. Miranda Rights protects suspects from overenthusiastic police officers. Many high ranking law …show more content…
That law was designed to insure that the statement given is voluntary and not extracted by force. Prior to the Miranda rights, suspects were not protected by any right to an attorney during any questioning by law enforcement officers. Suspects were treated poorly and were many times interrogated for hours at a time without the benefit of an attorney or any other constitutionally protected safeguards. If you think police today can be overwhelming in the way they treat suspects of a crime you would not believe the way they were treated before Miranda