In the 1966 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, came one of the most well known court decisions in America, which requires Miranda warning be read to a suspect by law enforcement (Hall, 2014). Miranda warnings regulate interrogations, confessions, and admissions. These are also protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which give people the right from self-incrimination and the right to council respectively (Hall, 2014).
The right of self-incrimination is the basis for having the Miranda warnings, which also notify a suspect they are entitled to council (Hall, 2014). Basically, the court said in order to protect suspects right to self-incrimination, the government has to notify that person of their right to remain …show more content…
Determining a custodial situation can be tricky and are subjectively based on both the officer and suspect’s belief if a custodial situation exists (Hall, 2014). If a reasonable and prudent person believes their freedom of movement has been restricted and they feel they are not allowed to leave, then most likely a custodial situation exists (Hall, 2014). Custodial situations can exist anywhere to include outside in a public place such as a park, as well as more commonly restrictive places such as an interrogation room inside a police station (Hall, 2014). Factors that can determine a custodial situation are location, length of time of encounter, number of officers, and statements made by all parties involved (Hall, 2014). Many law enforcement officers in the field, when required to read Miranda warnings, read them directly off a card so that they do not miss any of the warnings and this also helps when testifying in court. Another important factor when reading the warnings is to ensure the suspect understood them and also agrees to waive them before proceeding with any
The right of self-incrimination is the basis for having the Miranda warnings, which also notify a suspect they are entitled to council (Hall, 2014). Basically, the court said in order to protect suspects right to self-incrimination, the government has to notify that person of their right to remain …show more content…
Determining a custodial situation can be tricky and are subjectively based on both the officer and suspect’s belief if a custodial situation exists (Hall, 2014). If a reasonable and prudent person believes their freedom of movement has been restricted and they feel they are not allowed to leave, then most likely a custodial situation exists (Hall, 2014). Custodial situations can exist anywhere to include outside in a public place such as a park, as well as more commonly restrictive places such as an interrogation room inside a police station (Hall, 2014). Factors that can determine a custodial situation are location, length of time of encounter, number of officers, and statements made by all parties involved (Hall, 2014). Many law enforcement officers in the field, when required to read Miranda warnings, read them directly off a card so that they do not miss any of the warnings and this also helps when testifying in court. Another important factor when reading the warnings is to ensure the suspect understood them and also agrees to waive them before proceeding with any