ipl-logo

Police Exception Questions: Miranda V. Arizona

687 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Miranda vs.arizona

Final Exam Essay Question #1
Question: What did Miranda v. Arizona ultimately decide and how did it impact police questioning? What is the role of the current public safety exception in terms of Miranda and its use? Be sure to include specific discussions to the original cases and subsequent cases that support when Miranda applies in public safety cases.

Response:

Miranda v. Arizona was a case that focused on four separate court cases that involved custodial interrogations (USC, 2015). Each of these cases involved subjects being questioned by officers in rooms cut off from the general public. The main issue with these interrogations was the fact that none of the subjects were given a full advisory of their rights at the beginning of their …show more content…

Arizona case stated that a criminal suspect must make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive certain constitutional rights prior to questioning (Ortmeier, 2006). These constitution rights consisted of their right to remain silent; to be given an explanation on how anything they say can be used against them; their right to an attorney; and their right to have an attorney appointed to represent them if they cannot afford one. Additionally, Metgzar (2010) indicated without rights advisory, anything admitted by a subject in an interrogation will not be useable in there trial. The ruling also encouraged the expansion of Fifth Amendment and other constitutional …show more content…

Arizona public-safety exception was established to weaken the constitutional guarantees once afforded to criminal suspects by the cases original ruling (Belson, 1985). Moreover, in the case of New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court stated that a police officer’s concern for public safety can justify a failure to give Miranda warnings. This in turn allowed law enforcement to engage in unwarned interrogations, while the government is allowed to introduce the statements as direct evidence. However, the public safety exception only applied in situations where there is an immediate threat to the general public. A common example could be when a suspect is hiding a weapon in public place. In this situation an officer can question them on the location of the weapon without giving them their Miranda rights advisory. In the end, White (2015) indicates this historic case law works to protect the rights of citizens and to increase professionalism of the police

Show More
Related
364 Words | 2 Pages

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Pheonix, Arizona for the kidnapping and raping of a woman. When questioned by police officers, Miranda would eventually give a confession, and sign it, which wasn 't the case.. Before the court, this confession would be used against Miranda, and with it, the implication that it was received voluntarily and with the convicted knowing his rights. Miranda was convicted with a 20-30 year sentence. Upon eventually learning that his confession was obtained unlawfully, Miranda would appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, asking for an overturn, and when that fell through, would turn to the United States Supreme Court, filing a habeas corpus.

Read More
688 Words | 3 Pages

Also, it is important to note that the reason the case is cited as being Miranda v. Arizona is because it was the first on the docket. This case involved all of the following cases: 1) No. 759. Miranda v. Arizona, 2) No. 760 Vignera v. New York, 3) No. 761, Westover v. United States, and 4) No. 584, California v. Stewart. It is listed as Miranda v. Arizona because it was listed first on the

Read More
694 Words | 3 Pages

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman when she was walking home from work in Phoenix, Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and asked a series of questions about the incident. He was questioned for two hours by the police until he confessed to his crimes. The police had unconstitutionally obtained Miranda’s confession. While Ernesto was being questioned he was not informed of the fifth amendment which protects one from being held accountable for committing a crime without being properly informed of one’s rights, and sixth amendment that promises citizens a speedy trial, a fair jury, and an attorney.

Read More
1005 Words | 5 Pages

This court’s decision was that Miranda’s rights were not violated (United States Courts). Ernesto wasn’t happy with this decision, so he appealed it. The Arizona Supreme Court also decided that Miranda did not have any rights violated due to the fact that Miranda supposedly never asked for an attorney (Oyez). Miranda said he had asked for one, but was denied one (Miranda V. Arizona). Miranda then found other people who had the same problem as him.

Read More
959 Words | 4 Pages

Trayvon Martin was only seventeen years old when he was shot and killed by George Zimmerman on February 26, 2012 in Sanford, Florida. Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend prior to the shooting, not partaking in any sort of criminal activity. He was carrying a bag of Skittles in his pocket, not a weapon of any kind. Despite this, Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin in “self-defense”. He was charged with second-degree murder, but found not guilty.

Read More
1407 Words | 6 Pages

Both courts affirmed the lower court’s judgment and rejected Salinas’ claim that his silence was used in chief violation of the Fifth Amendment. Issue: Can one fairly conclude that an individual who agreed to be questioned has revoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection? Was Salinas’ silence a true exercise of this amendment? Rule: The petitioner must specifically call on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the time he relies on it in order to receive the benefit. Decision: Salinas’ claim fails because he did not verbally invoke this Fifth Amendment privilege in his response to the officer’s questions.

Read More
879 Words | 4 Pages

Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart 384 U.S. 436 86 S. Ct. 1602; 16 L. Ed. 2d 694; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2817; 10 A.L.R.3d 974. This case involves the fifth and sixth amendments of the US constitution, as well as the grand jury indictment clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his

Read More
1392 Words | 6 Pages

Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 4 Ohio Misc. 197, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (U.S.Ill. 1964) , because this case set the precedent for future cases to guarantee any suspect their constitutional rights upon arrest.

Read More
1227 Words | 5 Pages

’’ All law enforcement must inform suspects of their rights, also known as the Miranda Rights. Guilty or not his rights were violated and the Bill of Rights includes amendments for the

Read More
883 Words | 4 Pages

Arizona ruling eliminated the fear of the accused from torture and coercion and notified individuals of their rights that they otherwise wouldn’t have known that they had. The ruling explicitly stated that if a person was not informed of their Fifth Amendment right, then compelling pressures could cause a person who otherwise not have spoken, to incriminate themselves (Document J). In the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it had not specifically stated that a suspect must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona finally cleared up the confusion concerning the rights of the accused and self-incrimination and required officials of the law to read out the warning known as the Miranda warning to anyone they may question. Additionally, manuals such as Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, specified the rules to be used during interrogations to prevent coercion (Document F).

Read More
1055 Words | 5 Pages

Arizona that criminals must be informed of their rights before being prosecuted. Today, this ruling requires that police inform criminals of their right to remain silent, and that anything they say can be used against them in court. These rights, also known as Miranda rights include the criminal’s right to an attorney. If the police do not read a person’s Miranda rights when arresting a criminal, the court judging the case can discard any evidence that the criminal reveals while in police custody since he or she was not informed of their right to remain silent. While the Miranda decision was unpopular at the time, it was critical to ensuring that criminals were being persecuted for the appropriate crime on clear evidence and received the right to a fast and proper

Read More
554 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda v. Arizona Miranda v. Arizona was a groundbreaking case for the judicial system and law enforcement. It consisted of four cases; all dealing with interrogations: Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. In all the listed cases, each defendant was questioned without being given their rights and gave some kind of confession. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape, kidnapping and robbery. The victim picked Ernesto out of a line up, and he was brought in for questioning.

Read More
1213 Words | 5 Pages

Miranda vs. Arizona Introduction The Supreme Court case of Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) was a significant case for both law enforcement agencies and the citizens of America. This case would be the milestone that changed how law enforcement agencies handled citizens that were being detained for crimes that were committed. The results from this case have been constantly reviewed and gained further information on how the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are interpreted. While this was not the first case that brought up violations of Constitutional Rights, this case would set a standard that future Supreme Court Justices would have to uphold.

Read More
1478 Words | 6 Pages

Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement.

Read More
890 Words | 4 Pages

Arizona, Were his rights violated? It is obvious that Ernesto 's rights were not clear to him. Before his interrogation, Miranda was unaware of his rights and when he made his confession, they were entirely thrown out. In 1965, the court agreed to heir his case. Miranda 's case won 5-4 and a statement was made.

Read More

More about Police Exception Questions: Miranda V. Arizona

Related Topics

Open Document