This paper will go through the first arrest that a new police officer did while responding to a house break in. It will show what a FTL would say to the new officer on how they did with the situation after the arrest. We will identify four issues during the arrest that related to the Miranda Laws. Then, we will try and relate these issues to a historical case. Later, we will carefully analysis the situation and see if we could resolve the issues or not. We will then go over how these issues could have been prevent from happening.
Law Enforcement and Miranda Warnings
The FTL should have told the arresting officer once he realized the suspect did not speak English, he should have notified his supervisor. If the young male was a juvenile,
…show more content…
The Miranda Rights have to be fully understood and if someone does not speak or understand English, the arrest government agency has to provide a legal professional that speaks their language to read it to them. The Miranda Rights are there to protect people from incriminating them self’s in a crime. Every Law Enforcement in the United States has to protect all people 5th Amendment right before asking any question to someone in custody. When the responding officer arrived at the scene of the break in, since there was no evidence that the young boy was the suspect. The officer could have asked the subject to come down to the station with him for a statement. This way the subject would not be under arrest he would just be a witness to a crime. The officer would still need to notify his supervisor he needs an interpreter, but the officer could then speak to the subject without violating his 5th Amendments. Miranda vs Arizona is the land mark case that every Law Enforcement agency in the United States goes by. The Supreme Court of the United States looked at four main cases that had to do with custodial interrogations. In these cases the suspect was shut off from the outside world and questioned by law enforcement. Law enforcement did not make sure that these suspect fully understood their 5th Amendment rights before questioning them. In three of these cases the subjects gave signed statements and those statements were presented to the court in their hearings.