The Miranda v. Arizona brought about many changes when an officer makes an arrest. Officers should read the warnings if a felon is going to be “interrogated or if a confession”: takes place. All arrestees are not aware that they have rights; therefore, the arresting officer is the one responsible for reading the rights to him or her. Any time a person has to be arrested and questioned about an incident, there is a protocol that all law enforcement personnel have to follow. This procedure is important and mandatory because every person is protected by the Fifth Amendment of the United States (US) Constitution. These procedures did not come into effect until the case of Miranda v. Arizona. When law enforcement officers take someone into custody, …show more content…
474). As stated by Hall (2015), “The warnings are to be read to all persons in custody who are to be interrogated. The law does not presume that any person, including an attorney, knows these rights” (p. 474). When an officer reads the warnings to the offender, he or she should recite them As stated within a reasonable amount of time; furthermore, read them at a rate where the being arrested clearly understands what the arrestee understands the entirety of the arrest. If the offender understands each warning that the arresting officer reads, there is no reason to use the exact dialect verbatim. According to Hall (2015), “The early basis for excluding involuntary confessions was the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments” (p. 471). If a felon desires to make an acknowledgment of his or her case, then it must be stated within a six-hour time frame. The Miranda v. Arizona brought about many changes when an officer makes an arrest. Officers should read the warnings if a felon is going to be “interrogated or if a confession”: takes place. All arrestees are not aware that they have rights; therefore, the arresting officer is the one responsible for reading the rights to him or