• Home Page
  • Miranda Warning: The Purpose Of Miranda V. Arizona

Miranda Warning: The Purpose Of Miranda V. Arizona

Improved Essays
Show More
According to Memphis criminal attorney J. Jeffrey Lee, if police fail to read a Miranda warning to a person in custody being questioned, the police cannot use self-incriminating information obtained from the person. Cornell University's Legal Information Institute notes that this is part of the Exclusionary Rule.

The purpose of the Miranda warning is to protect the Fifth Amendment rights of a person in police custody from coercive police interrogation explains Carl A. Benoit, J.D. The Supreme Court created the warning in 1966 in the case known as Miranda v. Arizona. To prevent coercion, the Supreme Court requires police to inform a person in custody that they have the right to remain silent (among other things).

J. Jeffree Lee indicates that

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Supreme Court Case Study: Miranda V. Arizona
    • 653 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Supreme Court Case Study: Miranda V. Arizona

    1. What has been the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona on both law enforcement agencies and the court. -The arrested suspect must be told that they have the right to remain silent -The arrested suspect must be told that anything they say may be used against them in court -The arrested suspect must be told they have the right to an attorney with them before any questioning begins -They must be told that if they cannot afford an attorney an attorney can be provided for free -After they are told their rights and the arrested suspect says that they do not want an attorney and is willing to be questioned that they said so willingly and knowingly -The suspect has the right to turn off questioning any time after they have…

    • 653 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Court Case Summary
    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Court Case Summary

    However, he later attempted to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Arizona, his attorney arguing that due to the fact that he was not told his Fifth and Sixth amendment rights as an American citizen, that all the confessions he made before he was told the rights cannot be used against him. Although the police admit that they neglected to inform him of his rights, the court still ruled Miranda guilty, as he had been convicted previously and should already know the rights he has in interrogation. The ruling was later reversed by the Supreme Court. Contextualize. Why did it matter at the given time in History?…

    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Case Study Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona
    • 754 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Case Study Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    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
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Supreme Court Case: Lisenba Vs. New York
    • 396 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Supreme Court Case: Lisenba Vs. New York

    Since Miranda v. Arizona (1956) the Supreme Court watered down the protection of suspects during interrogation in several ways. The Miranda warnings weakened when courts decided they were not Fifth Amendment rights (Hemmens, 2014). Miranda warnings weakened when Courts ruled that police violations are inadmissible and does not apply to evidence obtained through Miranda violated interrogations. In addition, the courts ruled that not all parts of the Miranda warnings need to be read to suspects. One of the most damaging Miranda warnings were weakened when courts decided that if a confession was made through an interrogation that violated Miranda rules, the confession is admissible once the suspect Miranda rights were properly read (Hemmens, 2014, p. 28).…

    • 396 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper
    • 484 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

    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
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay
    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you" (" 'Miranda' Rights"). The law enforcement personnel must warn the individual prior to any investigation using the Miranda Warning. The Miranda rights are the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, which are stated in the Miranda…

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Fare V. Arizona 1979
    • 662 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Fare V. Arizona 1979

    In the case of Fare v. Michael C. (1979), the United States Supreme Court rejected the California Supreme Court’s position that a juvenile's request to see his probation officer constitutes an invocation of the right to remain silent within the context of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Sixteen year old Michael C. was taken into custody by the Van Nuys, California police department on suspicion of murder. After being advised of his Maranda rights, and acknowledging he understood them, he was asked if he wanted an attorney. His response was, “Can I have my probation officer here?” (Page 442 U. S. 710).…

    • 662 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Public Safety Exception Case Study
    • 572 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Public Safety Exception Case Study

    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
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda Rights Dbq Analysis
    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda Rights Dbq Analysis

    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
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona
    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona

    It is well within the rights of a police officer to use coercion to elicit answers from the accused, but allowing for that small shift in power only ensures greater shifts in power until it's borderline abuse. In past cases such as, Gideon V. Wainwright (1963), criminal defendant, Clarence Gideon, was convicted without ever have spoken to a lawyer despite his demands for one, this oversight in justice and slight against him further prove the importance of miranda rights. The Miranda warning ensures every citizen knows their constitutional rights, reaffirming the powers of the people and their right to know what they legally have to endure and the means by which it happens. This levels the powers of the police with the powers of the accused, keeping a neutral ground on which both have room to exercise their respective liberties. The Miranda warning ensures the liberty of the accused and the police by allowing for the entire police force to operate under a standard, keeping their integrity and liberty intact.…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Decent Essays

    Miranda Rights: The Fifth Amendment To The United States
    • 491 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Rights: The Fifth Amendment To The United States

    In criminal cases , the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy,and protects against self incrimination . It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use. All of your miranda rights are you have the right to remain…

    • 491 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
    Read More
  • Great Essays

    Bill Of Rights Vs Fifth Amendment
    • 1242 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Bill Of Rights Vs Fifth Amendment

    However, this only applies when the suspect is in custody. According to GetLegal.com, if both elements are not present, the police are not required to give Miranda warnings. Many landmark cases have addressed and debated over what the true meaning of "custody" and "interrogation," however the main definition to go by is that custody means to be arrested. Therefore, the standard a court will apply is objective as they give a fair choice, where they will ask whether the average person is aware of the circumstances and of their rights but would have felt free to leave the scene and remain silent. If the answer is no, the suspect is put in…

    • 1242 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    The Fifth Amendment
    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The Fifth Amendment

    Arizona, which ruled that the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence brought against a defendant at trial is only admissible if the defendant has been informed of his right against self-incrimination as well as his right to consult with an attorney. This Supreme Court decision was brought about by the conviction of Ernesto Miranda, who provided a confession to police without being informed of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. The Arizona State Supreme Court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that because he had not been informed of his rights, his rights had not been properly upheld. The key to this decision is the distinction between an informed waiving of those rights, and an uninformed waiving of those rights. If a person is convicted based on self-incrimination, the prosecution must be able to prove that they were explicitly aware of and subsequently waived their rights.…

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Judicial Summary: Miranda V. Arizona
    • 1238 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Judicial Summary: Miranda V. Arizona

    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
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Criminal Justice Process Analysis
    • 1883 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Criminal Justice Process Analysis

    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
    Read More

Related Topics

Ready To Get Started?
Discover
Company
Follow
©2024 Cram.com
Privacy Policy |  About Ads |  Site Map |  Advertise  | 
  • Cookie Settings