Option 2:
Impact of Miranda on Policing and Prosecuting
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is an extremely famous case that affected policing and prosecuting criminals tremendously. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), affected policing and prosecuting criminals just as much as the well-known Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 463 (1961), case did, when it made items found via unreasonable search and seizure inadmissible in court. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), has caused all sorts of controversy over the last four decades and will continue to into the future. The case has been linked to hand-cuffing police officers and making it harder for prosecutors to get criminals convicted of their crimes.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was the landmark case where the United States Supreme Court “ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination” (McBride 2006). This case was a result due to a man named Ernesto Miranda, who admitted, while being recorded by the police, to rape, kidnapping, and robbery (McBride 2006). Ernesto Miranda, who never completed the ninth grade and was known to have mental instability, was never told his Fifth Amendment rights before his confession (McBride 2006). Even though he was never told his …show more content…
McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984). In this case the defendant, McCarty, was stopped because he was swerving all over the road. The officer asked him if he was under the influence of any intoxicants and McCarty admitted to drinking a couple beers and smoking marijuana. The officer took him into custody and began questioning him again once they were at the jail. He never told McCarty his “Miranda Rights”. Even though he was never told his rights the trial court still found McCarty guilty. McCarty filed a writ of habeas corpus and appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
Impact of Miranda on Policing and Prosecuting
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is an extremely famous case that affected policing and prosecuting criminals tremendously. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), affected policing and prosecuting criminals just as much as the well-known Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 463 (1961), case did, when it made items found via unreasonable search and seizure inadmissible in court. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), has caused all sorts of controversy over the last four decades and will continue to into the future. The case has been linked to hand-cuffing police officers and making it harder for prosecutors to get criminals convicted of their crimes.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was the landmark case where the United States Supreme Court “ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination” (McBride 2006). This case was a result due to a man named Ernesto Miranda, who admitted, while being recorded by the police, to rape, kidnapping, and robbery (McBride 2006). Ernesto Miranda, who never completed the ninth grade and was known to have mental instability, was never told his Fifth Amendment rights before his confession (McBride 2006). Even though he was never told his …show more content…
McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984). In this case the defendant, McCarty, was stopped because he was swerving all over the road. The officer asked him if he was under the influence of any intoxicants and McCarty admitted to drinking a couple beers and smoking marijuana. The officer took him into custody and began questioning him again once they were at the jail. He never told McCarty his “Miranda Rights”. Even though he was never told his rights the trial court still found McCarty guilty. McCarty filed a writ of habeas corpus and appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court