...1.2 Miranda Warning and Waiver of Rights 1.2.1 Miranda Warning A. Definition 1. Miranda warning/rights- The Miranda warning or the Miranda rights as it is also known as is a right to a suspect that they can or may remain silent and is given by a police officer in the United States to a criminal suspect when they are in custody (or in a custodial interrogation). Furthermore, these rights or warning is done prior to them being interrogated in order to preserve the admissibility of their statement against them in criminal court or a court of law (mirandawarning.org. n.d.). 2. Waiver of Rights- A waiver of rights is when a suspect waives his or her Miranda warning or rights. Fortunately, in order for a suspect to be able to waive...
Words: 1113 - Pages: 5
...DESCRIBE INSTANCES WHEN THE MIRANDA WARNINGS ARE NOT REQUIRED. The Miranda warning is part of a criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. Generally, no Miranda warning is required if the suspect is not held in custody for criminal-investigative purposes. A citizen not in custody who is asked potentially incriminating questions by a police officer must claim the benefit of the Fifth Amendment instead of answering if he wishes to retain his privilege. For example, at a traffic stop, Miranda warning is not required unless the suspect is taken into custody. When arrested and you invoke your right to counsel before making several statements, the statements then are considered volunteered because they were spontaneous and not made during an interrogation. Also, a prison inmate is not in custody for Miranda purposes because his freedom of movement is not restricted more than it would normally be in the prison environment. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. If placed “in custody” for purposes of receiving Miranda protection, there must be either a “formal arrest, or restraint on freedom of...
Words: 1205 - Pages: 5
...It is important to note that police are only required to Mirandize a suspect if they intend to interrogate that person under custody. Arrests can occur without the Miranda Warning being given. If the police later decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must be given at that time. Their vigilance to this rule means less chance of a case being overturned in court due to poor procedure on their part. If public safety is an issue, questions may be asked without the defendant being Mirandized, and any evidence obtained may be used against the suspect under these circumstances. The Miranda Warning is all about questioning and being protected from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, not being arrested. The person arrested must still...
Words: 271 - Pages: 2
...situation(s)? Do you believe that specific demographic or ethnographic groups working in the United States need legal protection against retaliation? Why, or why not? Provide examples. Please include the name of the person or question to which you are replying in the subject line. For example, "Tom's response to Susan's comment." Yes I do feel that I have been discriminated against. At the age of 18 I was falsely arrested. I went to my father’s house to use his internet to fill out a resume because I was going to be starting a new job. When I was done I started to make my way to my mother’s house when I was pulled over by the police. They came out guns drawn which confused me. They proceeded to arrest me. They did not even read me my Miranda Rights. I was booked and thrown in a cell for the entire weekend. My family was not notified. I was told that I matched a black male with black on in a dark colored sedan. When I was release the following Monday I was treated like it was my fault that I was in there in the first place. I do think that certain groups do need protection however, I believe that it is some of our supposed protectors who inflict such things as racial profiling, unnecessary force, and brutality. What are we to do to correct...
Words: 252 - Pages: 2
...paying. An example of liberty is doing what you want, saying what you want, and go anywhere you want without someone telling you otherwise. If you don’t have liberty it’s either because of a law or because of slavery. Slavery hasn’t been around in decades but they are still people who do it. Slavery was one of the biggest issues that resulted in people either not having a liberty or wanting to have liberty but can’t because of slavery. Liberty matters because once upon a time, many people didn’t have liberty. Citizens have certain rights because they have liberty. Without liberty most people wouldn’t be living the lives they are living now. For example if someone was to get arrested, the police is always supposed to read the suspect their Miranda rights or the suspect would automatically be released from police custody and they could go to court based on the arrest that was made. My responsibility is to protect myself and for those whom I care for and follow all rules to insure my safety. I am also responsible for protecting my liberty. Everyone should know the Bill of Rights so they could maintain power over certain things in their own life. For...
Words: 357 - Pages: 2
...The court assumes a subject to be under arrest once he is read his Miranda rights. Interviews are those standard Q-and-A sessions between an officer and either a witness or a victim. They’re normally conducted outside of the lock-up, in interview rooms. Interrogations, normally understood to be the questioning of a suspect in a crime, are usually held within the secure confines of a lock-up facility. As a subject you have: * You have the right to remain silent when questioned. * Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. (Modern readings have can and will in place of may) * You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. * If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. * If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. * Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? These rights come into play when you are in custody of the law. A person should always be told these when they are told they are under arrest. If he continues questioning without reading him his rights the court can decide to not listen to the information given by Officer James. He should detain or arrest the suspect...
Words: 294 - Pages: 2
...Room 122 at the corner of Main Street. At this time David Lee Moore exited his parked car and proceeded to enter room 36B. Officer X recognized David Lee Moore, AKA “Chubs”. Officer X exited the police vehicle and ordered Mr. Moore out of the room. Officer X requested identification, registration and proof of insurance from Mr. Moore. The identification provided by Mr. Moore confirmed he was David Lee Moore. Dispatch was able to confirm that Moore’s license was suspended based upon the ID number provided, and that he was illegally operating a vehicle, which is a misdemeanor. Moore was informed that he was under arrest for driving on a suspended license and that his vehicle was going to be impounded. Officer Y cuffed and advised Moore of Miranda Rights. Officer X radioed to dispatch for a tow truck to be dispatched to their location to impound the vehicle. Officer Y asked Moore if he would consent to have his hotel room searched. Moore consented to the search of his hotel room.. Upon arriving at Moore’s hotel room (36B), Officer Y and Officer X, realized that neither of them had searched Moore’s car and City Towing had already picked up Moore’s vehicle and impounded it at the City...
Words: 415 - Pages: 2
...reality, the movie incited constructive debate for years to come. In the movie, Bill and Stan are pulled over and arrested. They had inadvertently taken a can of tuna without paying for it and they thought they were being arrested for shoplifting but little did they know, that was far from the case. The first thing that I noticed during the arrest is that the sheriff had his weapon pulled. The sheriff was arresting them because he thought they had committed a felony. He had every right to have his weapon drawn in this case. During the initial arrest Bill and Stan were not informed about what crime they had been arrested for, which they should have been. Once the young men were transported to the police station they were still not read their Miranda rights but they were asked if they knew their rights prior to being interrogated by the sheriff. After a few misleading questions and an obviously coerced confession they were made aware of what they were being accused of. Bill and Stan get implicated as suspects in a murder case. The booking process was unconventional at best, downright illegal at worst. The movie did not show whether or not they were formally booked which consists of positive identification, being informed of the charges against them and providing fingerprints and photographs. They were given the one phone call that they were entitled to which they used to call family members and get legal representation. Then they were placed in a state corrections holding facility where...
Words: 300 - Pages: 2
...Nebraska’s bail system is a very long process that involves a lot of time and effort. Bail is something offered depending on the level of crime committed and bail is posted depend on the judge’s opinion. The first step required is to be arrested for committing a crime. A person that is being arrested need to be sure to exercise his Miranda Rights. Law enforcement is required by law to give everyone their Miranda Right while being arrested. Criminals who fail to use this may end up self-incriminating themselves and may not receive a bail opportunity. After being arrested, the defendant will have his first trial soon, the bond hearing. The bond hearing determines if you are to be granted bail. This is generally the first hearing. The judge typically must set a reasonable bail in the majority of cases unless the crime is a major felony. The amount of bail is to be determined based on the seriousness of the crime that was committed. For example, a theft at gunpoint will require a higher bail based on a disorderly conduct charge. Another fact that the judge has to post bond on is if the probability of you fleeing is high. Good standings in the community and a clean arrest record will greatly improve your chances to receive a lower bail. Typically, if you have a record of failing to appear in court the bail probably will be set at a higher amount to ensure you will appear for court. Here is the process of getting bond posted so you can get out of jail until your actual...
Words: 572 - Pages: 3
...Axia College | Miranda Assignment | Week 8 Assignment ADJ 275 | | | 7/10/2011 | | * When should the Miranda warnings be given and why? * How might this situation not require Miranda warnings? * Explain your reasoning. Miranda warnings should be given as soon as the suspect is in custody and before any questioning or interrogation. Miranda warnings are given in order to protect the constitutional rights of the suspect. Miranda warnings also ensures comments made by a suspect are admissible in a court of law. If the suspect is made aware of his or her rights, and choose to waive them, any incriminating statements can be used against them. If they waive the right to an attorney, they can be questioned without an attorney coaching them. A suspect may also, at any time during interrogation, request counsel. At this time, questioning must stop until the suspects attorney is present. A request for counsel must be clear and unambiguous. If a suspect decides they want an attorney after initially waiving thir rights, they must clearly state this. Officers conducting the interrogation may ask questions to determine if the suspect is indeed asking for an attorney. Example case: Davis v. US The Supreme Court ruled that clarifying statements were not required if a suspect makes an ambiguous statement of their Miranda right to counsel. The defendant Robert L. Davis, was accused of beating a sailor to death with a poolcue after an argument...
Words: 1040 - Pages: 5
...Individual Project AIU Online Ashleigh Wright 02/16/2013 Case 1 Should the Supreme Court hold up and agree to the convection? No, not at all. In this case it is stated the Crain was improperly and illegally arrested, if that's e true case then yes this is almost a classic case of fruit of the poisonous tree. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.(Legal Dictionary, 2008) The name fruit of the poisonous tree is thus a metaphor: the poisonous tree is evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search, or interrogation by law enforcement. The fruit of this poisonous tree is evidence later discovered because of knowledge gained from the first illegal search, arrest, or interrogation. The poisonous tree and the fruit are both excluded from a criminal trial.(Legal Dictionary, 2008) That being stated, then no the Supreme Court should not hold up his conviction, they should actually...
Words: 1090 - Pages: 5
...a. identify the person who is to be arrested. b. identify those responsible for a crime and eliminate the innocent from suspicion. c. ensure proper punishment. d. eliminate the innocent. 3. Two basic requirements for obtaining information are to a. listen and observe. c. observe and analyze. b. listen and respond. d. assess and evaluate. 4. Which of the following questions is most direct? a. “Were you around the area of the corner of 5th and Main last night?” b. “Where were you last night?” c. “Did you assault George Smith at 5th and Main last night?” d. “Why did you assault George?” 5. When conducting an interview, you should a. interview all witnesses at once. b. give first consideration to eyewitnesses. c. give the Miranda warning first. d. interview the victim or complainant first. 6. People may volunteer information if approached correctly. Consequently, the following technique is useful to demonstrate when conducting an interview. a. developing rapport b. developing an intimate relationship c. using bribery and gratuities d. using flattery and guile 7. The best place to interrogate a suspect is usually a. in the police vehicle. b. in the suspect’s home. c. at the...
Words: 2043 - Pages: 9
...land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” In summary, the 5th Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination. Next let me briefly explain the Miranda v. Arizona case. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. After several hours of being interrogated, Miranda finally confessed and agreed to sign a written statement that included a typed disclaimer stating he had full acknowledgement of his legal rights to include understanding that any statements can be used against him and that he voluntarily waived his rights. In actuality, Miranda did not have an attorney present during his questioning, or at his preliminary hearing. The fact that he was not even aware that he had the right to consult with an attorney prior to his court appearance violated his constitutional rights. Consequently he was convicted of his charges and was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. During Miranda’s appeal, his lawyer argued that he had been denied his constitutional rights for illegally obtaining his confession. Eventually his lawyer petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a hearing...
Words: 606 - Pages: 3
...2005. The Court of Appeals found that detectives improperly interrogated Dorsey for 13 hours and didn’t give him his Miranda Warnings. Dorsey was found guilty and sentence to 14 years in prison. The conviction was overturned and the court ordered a new trial. Dorsey Fifth Amendment rights were violated according to a 5-2 ruling for the D.C. Court of Appeals. U.S. attorney office is reviewing the ruling. Prosecutors could retry this case. ANALYSIS Keith L. Alexandria of the Washington Post is correct when he wrote this article to uncover the violations the police department conducted when interrogating James Dorsey for the crime of assault against an 83 year old woman. Alexander presents a perspective that favors the defendant, when exploiting the fact that police detectives improperly interrogated Dorsey, and failed to give him his Miranda warning before questioning him about the crime. This action resulted in the violation of Dorsey’s Fifth Amendment rights, which got his conviction, overturned and ordered a new trial. Alexander makes good points when presenting the facts of Dorsey’s Fifth Amendment right violation while also informing his readers about the victim’s friend’s reaction to this violation and the implications. This article presented a lot of facts but did not mention the detectives reasoning for not giving Dorsey his Miranda warning. Further, the article did not mention if the police were going to investigate any new suspects, based on the fact that...
Words: 1250 - Pages: 5
...Miranda The Fifth Amendment commands that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” By this creed the Miranda rights when invoked, protects the suspect from relaying information to law enforcement which can used in a court of law against him. Even though the Miranda rights now occupy a pivotal place in American legal culture, it is still evolving and the Courts have continued to define its scope, strength and limitations since the initial ruling in 1966. Within the fact pattern given in Appendix I there are several incident components. The basic outline describes police Officer Watson responding to a burglary in progress call at 2:00 a.m., witnessing a person in dark clothing fleeing the reported scene of the crime. Pursuit first by car and then on foot ensues, with the suspect even climbing a fence in his effort to get away from the officer. A metal object is discarded prior to when Officer Watson catches the suspect. Officer Watson asks about the discarded object, and then finds the knife and some jewelry. He places the suspect under arrest then continued to ask the suspect questions about the knife and jewelry. The suspect remains silent and Officer Watson takes him back to the station for further interrogation. There the suspect confessed to the burglary under questioning. Ideally the Miranda rights should be read to the suspect after he or she has officially been taken into custody, but prior to any questioning or interrogation...
Words: 1096 - Pages: 5
