ipl-logo

The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Warning

676 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Miranda warnings pros and cons

you, are you will to answer my questions without an attorney present? (Gardner & Anderson, 2013)
One of the biggest controversies surrounding Miranda warnings is that it has caused great difficulty to law enforcement officer’s efforts in controlling crimes. At times, it now appears that are police officers have their hands tied in things that they can and can’t do while at a crime scene. Another controversial issue with the Miranda warnings is whether or not they should be given to terrorists. With the many recent terrorists attacks that have occurred over the years, the debate of whether non Americans should be read Miranda warning is a controversy that has raged on. The issue at hand that has caused much controversy is whether the United …show more content…

After a consent search has been given that then makes everything that the police officer finds admissible evidence. A warrantless search can also apply if it falls under the Plain View Doctrine. The Plain View Doctrine deals with evidence of criminal activity that a police officer can see prior to entering or conducting an initial search. If criminal activity is observed, then a police officer may enter without a search warrant. Another reason why a police officer may be able to conduct a warrantless search is due to an emergency exception. A warrantless search may also be conducted if the police officer deems that someone’s safety is in question or that criminal activity is occurring at that time. Of the three warrantless search requirements that I mentioned, the last two are ones that have been subject to a lot of controversy recently. The Plain View Doctrine is pretty simple to understand but the judgment call or the honesty of the police officer is what is in question. It has happened in previous cases in the past that corrupt officers will say that they saw something or smelled something as the defendant opened the door so that they can go in and

Show More
Related
463 Words | 2 Pages

Pp. 5–28. (a) A warrantless search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. See Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___. The well-established exception at issue here applies when a warrantless search is conducted incident to a lawful arrest.

Read More
688 Words | 3 Pages

Case Citation: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda, Plaintiff/ Appellant State of Arizona, Defendant/ Appellee Facts: This case represents the consolidation of four different cases, in which an accused individual confessed to a crime after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during the interrogation. The first case resolved Ernesto Miranda who was arrested and charged with kidnap and rape. He confesses and signed a written statement after a two-hour interrogation.

Read More
579 Words | 3 Pages

Chapter 4 is titled "Criminal Investigatory Search Warrants. " Search warrant laws are found in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The elements of a search warrant include: (1) an order in writing, (2) issued by a proper judicial authority, (3) in the name of the people, (4) directed to a law enforcement officers, (5) commanding the officer to search for certain personal property, and (6) commanding the officer to bring that property before the judicial authority named in the warrant. Neutral judicial officers such as clerks of court, magistrates, complaint justices, judges, and justices of the peace are allowed to issue search warrants in their permitted jurisdictions. They must have probable cause before they can authorize a search warrant, which is usually done through an affidavit submitted by the law

Read More
292 Words | 2 Pages

The Fourth Amendment draws a line at the entrance of a home. In order for an officer to enter into a home, they must first obtain a warrant. While this is the easiest way to enter into a home, there are exceptions to the necessity of a warrant. An officer does not need a warrant when there is consent, it involves a vehicle, at incident to arrest, containers, or it is an emergency. This case is considered an emergency.

Read More
885 Words | 4 Pages

If the police were to conduct a search without a warrant or consent in this situation, any and all evidence found would be prohibited from use against the suspect in the court of law. This rule is called the exclusionary law, created under the Supreme Court ruling of Mapp v. Ohio (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961), states that any evidence that is illegally obtained during an investigation cannot be used in the court of

Read More
1163 Words | 5 Pages

In this case, those tactics were pushed to the extreme. The interrogators showed complete dominance in order for Miranda to confess. The Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation declares, “He must dominate his subject and overwhelm him with his inexorable will to obtain the truth” (Document F). In this examination, the rudiments of investigations over-stepped their “dominance” and nearly forced a confession. The accused must be informed of their rights to avoid this mistreatment, otherwise the person suspected is practically compelled to speak, even though they might not do so normally (Document G).

Read More
241 Words | 1 Pages

I don’t see any Cons; only Pros with the Miranda rights, which are that it allows the person in custody to be informed of their rights, letting them know that they do not have to speak if they do not want to. That they cannot be coerced to confess to something that they don’t want to confess to, because it might not stand up in criminal proceedings; and it covers the arresting officer and if any evidence is obtained it can be used in court. I do think the police should have to read the Miranda warning in all situations. People need to be informed. Sometimes a situation can seem so small, but I think that if this warning is given in any situation the person being detained can know that they do not have to speak without an attorney present and

Read More
153 Words | 1 Pages

Several exceptions to the Fourth amendment have been made over the past several decades, with some being understandable and others being questionable. Consenting to a search results in not needing a warrant, though this poses many exceptions and complications, i.e. the scope of the consent given, whether consent is voluntarily specified, or whether a person has the right to consent to a search of another's property. Another understandable exception is the “plain view” doctrine, where an officer (acting in legal presence) can seize plain view objects. The stipulation to this is that the officer must have had probable clause that the objects seized are contraband. Exigent circumstances, where it would be harmful or impractical to obtain a warrant

Read More
883 Words | 4 Pages

The creation of the United States and the colonies that came before, brought about many legal traditions and precedents. Among these legal traditions and precedents, is an essential precedent present in all interrogation related proceedings and court ones—the Miranda warning. When an individual is detained, they may be subjected to an interrogation by designated officials. During an interrogation certain rights are guaranteed to an individual through the provision of the Bill of Rights to prevent self-incrimination and the historical precedent established before it. However, in certain situations, these rights were not always guaranteed as they should’ve been.

Read More
906 Words | 4 Pages

Two additional times police do not need warrants are during hot pursuit and in plain view. Hot pursuit is when a law official is chasing a criminal and the criminal runs onto private property. The police can also take any evidence found during the chase. In plain view means cops can take any evidence in plain view as long as the police are where they can legally

Read More
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
376 Words | 2 Pages

The Miranda warning provides protection to help people be provided their rights under the fifth and sixth Amendment’s. When a person is either caught or believed to have committed a crime and need to be questioned by an officer they are given their rights. They are asked if they understand their rights which is also protecting the person and an officer. These rights are given when taken into custody or before and interrogation. There are many pros and cons, like right to remain silent or right to an attorney are the ones you hear a lot about and can help a person that is being arrested.

Read More
1129 Words | 5 Pages

So once you or the individual has consent to search, the general rule is that they have waived the rights that protect them under the fourth amendment. Another thing the fourth amendment doesn’t protect are observations, or anything in plain sight. this is because items in plain sight, “ are not considered searches within the protection of the fourth amendment on the basis that what individuals knowingly expose to the public,…, is not subject to the protection of the fourth amendment.” (P.T.,

Read More
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
832 Words | 4 Pages

The FISA and the USA Patriot Act The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA Patriot Act) are two actions taken to aid in the efforts against terrorism in the United States. FISA was enacted in 1978 and the U.S. Patriot Act was enacted in 2001 (McAdams III, no date). Both Acts have been and will continue to be critical instruments to combat terrorism. However, the media has exploited these Acts in terms of civil liberties and has demoralized the truth behind them.

Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Warning

Related Topics

Open Document