Essay On Miranda Vs Arizona

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.

Background

Ernesto Miranda was a Mexican-American citizen working and living in Arizona. He was convicted

During this case, there was dissent among the justices. This caused the results from the trial to be delayed, but would provide the best answer possible for law enforcement agencies around the United States. As Levenberg, T.O. (1995) states, “The court in Miranda created these procedural safeguards to adequately ensure that the accused know their rights and that the police honor them.” Out of the nine Supreme Court justices, five voted that the initial evidence could not be used because Ernesto Miranda was unaware of his rights to a legal counsel and his right to not give a statement until he had a legal counsel. These justices would go back and review three other cases as they made their decision; Westover vs. United States, Vignera vs. New York, and California vs. Stewart. There was dissent among Justices John Marshall Harlan II and Byron White, while Justice Tom C. Clark had partial dissent and concurrence of the case. Justice Clark used the “totality of the circumstances” test that was enunciated in the Haynes vs. Washington case to convince the other justices that the Phoenix police department had wrongfully received incriminating statements from Ernesto Miranda. While these Justices had varied reasons for their position, the decision would ultimately bring an immediate change to the current policy of interrogation that police departments

The results from the trial remained the same; however the way the police now handled people that were under arrest changed. One of the biggest changes is what we now know as our Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights are required to be given to everyone in the United States. As Washington, E. (2005) states, “In Miranda, the Court held that before a lawful arrest, the police have to read to the suspect "his rights" which is the following statement: You have a right to remain silent. Anything that you say, can and will be used against you. You have a right to an attorney. If you can't afford an attorney, one will be provided for you, etc …” The only difference is in the wording from state to state, but they are essentially the same warning given to a person under arrest. One of the most interesting things about the Miranda Rights was the fact that they were handed to officers on cards and some officers even had Ernesto Miranda “autograph” them for a small payment. There were multiple issues that were faced when dealing with Miranda Rights. As Gillard, Rogers, Kelsey, and Robinson (n.d.) states, “Close to five decades after this landmark decision, fundamental questions continue to arise about suspects’ comprehension of these rights.” Two cases in 2010, Florida vs. Powell and Berghuis v. Thompkins showed that there are various ways that these Miranda