ipl-logo

Miranda Warnings Research Paper

257 Words2 Pages

“Miranda warnings are triggered by a simple formula: Custody + Interrogation = The requirement for Miranda warnings” (petrocelli, 2010, p.18). Questioning that occurs by a law enforcement officer after an individual has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom requires that an officer must first read the individual their Miranda rights. Officers do not always have to Mirandize citizen before asking questions only in cases where the individual is being taken into custody or is not free to leave. It can often be confusing to now whether a person is in custody, but that can be clarified by determining if the person has been told they are under arrest, or if the person has been deprived of freedom to the degree one associates

Show More
Related

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

    1196 Words  | 5 Pages

    The decision of The Supreme court for Miranda V. Arizona addressed 4 separate trials. In the Miranda V. Arizona trial while he was being questioned he had no contact with the outside world. In the trial he was not told all of his rights. The questioning brought about oral statements, three of which, were signed statements that were disclosed at trial. Miranda was arrested at his house where he was then taken to the police station, and identified by an witness.

    Read More

  • Case Summary Of The Miranda V. Arizona Brief Case

    539 Words  | 3 Pages

    Selina Ledezma Mrs. Kowalski-Garza CRIJ 3310-91L March 20, 2017 Miranda v. Arizona Brief Case Citation: 384 U.S. 436 Year Decided: 1966 Summary of the facts: On March 13, 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home in Phoenix, Arizona by two officers. He was taken to the police station where he was picked in a lineup by the victim of kidnapping and rape and later identified in a robbery case. After two hours of being interrogated Miranda confessed the crime. He was not advised of either his right to counsel, right to consult with counsel, or right to remain silent before his oral confession. Miranda was found guilty by the jury and convicted to 20 to 30 years in prison after the state court and prosecutor used his confession.

    Read More

  • Hi Miranda Case Study

    483 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hi Miranda, I am sorry to hear about the property damage performed within your parent 's neighborhood. These actions affect the property values of homes when the house is sold for a much lower value that the market value. At that time during the recession, the market value of any home was dropped due to the fact banks were lending out loans to people without getting a solid read on if people could truly afford to buy the house. For those who lean out money makes commission, so it is not int their interest to ensure the person purchase a house can afford it.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Case Summary

    734 Words  | 3 Pages

    It was later noticed upon an appeal to the state Supreme Court that the officer who arrested Miranda, did not state his basic rights and was affirmed. (legaldictionary.net, Procedural History). This also means that Miranda couldn’t be set free because he did not ask to have an to be attorney present. But, Miranda and other defendants with similar cases petitioned to the United States Supreme Court to reevaluate the case and to have another ruling. The overall ruling of the final case to have it mandatory to read these specific rights was passed and are vital to the process of being arrested and

    Read More

  • Summary: The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    1089 Words  | 5 Pages

    In the case of Miranda, having the defendant being subjugated to punishment when they weren’t given vital information like their rights, indeed unjust. The Miranda rights following the Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 are stated my police when arrested suspects and when suspects are being questioned. This prevents information being wrongfully coerced from suspects and entitles suspects to an attorney. Whether a suspect or defendant knows their Miranda rights or not could mean

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Study

    624 Words  | 3 Pages

    Although the Miranda Rights have helped many people throughout their cases, it has also hurt the police departments all across America. After the Miranda Rights were enforced to be used after arresting, the number of confessions from suspects fell sixteen percentage points. It also affected the number of cases solved because the suspects no longer confessed about the wrong they did so there were large number of cases that never gotten solved. Many crimes were let unsolved and they dramatically fell in numbers like the cases of violent crimes solved dropped 25% and property crimes solved fell as well. To put the numbers in perspective , if the Miranda rights weren 't put into place between 8,000 to 36,000, or more robberies would have been solved in 1995 according to Paul Cassell, that 's a lot of robberies that could have been

    Read More

  • The Miranda Rights: The Case Of Genovevo Salinas

    306 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Miranda Rights, are well known to most of the public. So you wouldn’t think that you need to ask for them. The fifth amendment, read during the Miranda Rights, is that a suspect has the right to not self incriminate. In the case of Salinas, he thought he was pleading the fifth, but was surprised that really he was just admitting guilt. Genovevo Salinas, was sitting in silence when being interrogated, assuming that the police knew he was pleading the fifth.

    Read More

  • Principles Of Miranda Vs Arizona Democracy

    569 Words  | 3 Pages

    Before the police interrogation, which lasted two hours, Miranda was not informed of his rights which therefore caused him to be interrogated without an attorney present and it led him to self-incriminate himself. The trial “ consisted solely of his confession” (Alex Mcbride n.d.) which caused the court to convict Miranda of rape and kidnapping, sentencing him to 20-30 years in prison. Miranda then went to the Arizona Supreme Court appealing that his confession was unconstitutionally obtained and used against him. When the court disagreed he appealed to the U.S Supreme Court where they declared the actions of law enforcement unconstitutional because they violated the constitution's fifth and sixth amendment. Because of this, Miranda's confession could not be admissible in a court of

    Read More

  • Stand Your Ground Law Research Paper

    552 Words  | 3 Pages

    Imagine an individual, getting ready for their slumber. Now imagine an intruder breaking into there window with the intention to shoot anyone in its way. Recall that the homeowner is unable to legally defend himself and must retreat from the intruder. This scenario can be possible in all 50 states, but only Seventeen states do not give people the right to legally defend themselves, even if confronted with a person holding a weapon. This means a innocent person attempting to defend their family or himself would wrongly get accused if the intruder got injured.

    Read More

  • Earl Warren's Supreme Court Cases

    1023 Words  | 5 Pages

    Arizona case argued whether or not “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect” (Oyez). Miranda, after two hours of interrogation, gave a written confession to the police saying that he was guilty. However, the police did confess that they had never informed Miranda of his Fifth Amendment rights, which included a right to an attorney, and because of this, the argument was made that the police had violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights. Warren, who was a part of the majority, in this case, decided in favor of Miranda, and that “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place” (Oyez).

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona

    1287 Words  | 6 Pages

    Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not immediately informed of his Miranda rights, although he was questioned by police. Under the public-safety exception to the law, law enforcement may question a suspect without invoking Miranda if the police have credible reason to believe the suspect may have information about an imminent threat to public safety. Once he was read his Miranda rights, police said Tsarnaev stopped answering questions (Imbriano, 2013). Conclusion Miranda v. Arizona, although nearly 50 years old, stands as one of the most well-known and important Supreme Court rulings.

    Read More

  • Why People Wive Their Miranda Rights

    376 Words  | 2 Pages

    When people are suspects under the law, they are entitled to their Miranda rights. A persons Miranda rights entitle them to remain silent, have an attorney present, have an attorney appointed to them if they cannot afford one, and that person is questioned if they understand those rights. It seems that a whopping 80% of suspects waive their Miranda rights. There are no exact reasons, only speculations as to why people waive that right. One that I will focus on is “Why do I need an attorney, if I did not do anything wrong?”

    Read More

  • Stop And Frisk Research Paper

    1132 Words  | 5 Pages

    Stop Injustice, End "Stop and Frisk" Do you want to feel discriminated against? No? If you do not want to feel discriminated against then stop "stop and frisk". "Stop and frisk" is a law that caused much trouble for the people of the United States and the people of planet earth. This law allows police and officers to stop blameless people and frisk them.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    890 Words  | 4 Pages

    Even though what Miranda did was a violent and horrible action. His trial still brought up controversy in the court system which later turned into a Miranda warning card that police stations around the country use to this

    Read More

  • We The People Chapter 4 Summary

    501 Words  | 3 Pages

    The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.

    Read More

More about Miranda Warnings Research Paper

Open Document