Ernesto Miranda, was an immigrant that lived in Phoenix, Arizona. He was accused of kidnap and rape by a woman and arrested in 1963. While the police questioned him, they did not inform him of the Fifth Amendment (protection of self-incrimination) and the Sixth Amendment (right to an attorney). This case involved Mr. Chief Justice Warren, Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan (accompanied by Mr. Justice Stewart), and Mr. Justice White. The court argued upon this case on February 28-March 1, 1966.
The Bill of Rights, the document that gives us our rights, and helped formed today’s society. But it wasn’t always as spread out and fundamental as it is today. Over the years, the Supreme Court has extended our rights in many ways. The Miranda vs. Arizona and Gideon vs. Wainright are just a few examples of the Bill of Rights’ extension. First and foremost, the Amendments addressing rights related to court weren’t always fundamental, but were only in use for federal hearings.
Ernesto Miranda, a suspect charged with rape, kidnapping and robbery, had his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights violated during a police interrogation. These injustices lead to a United States Supreme Court trial, whose outcome forever imprints our justice system. Ernesto Miranda, a resident of Phoenix, was charged for rape, kidnapping, and robbery in 1963. Miranda was identified by the victim and he was detained and interrogated by police for two hours, where he allegedly conceded to the crimes he was charged of and signed a written statement included with a typed disclaimer, without any attorney present. The police neglected to apprise Miranda of his right to an attorney and his right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination prior to police interrogation, which is a violation of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.
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.
“The Fourth Amendment says that you have an expectation of privacy in your home and person (body). The government cannot search you, your home, or belongings without a good reason.” (Background Essay). But, through the years the government has invaded the protection the Fourth Amendment has given to society. For example, “Federal agents put a bug- a device that allowed them to listen to the conversations” (Doc A).
The outcome of this case made sure that every person who was arrested and put under the custody of the police had to read their Miranda rights and therefore made known of their Fifth Amendment rights. This case would change the procedure of every legal arrest from that point on, and ensure that any person under the custody of the police would be fully aware of their
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The common misconception is that it simply covers what it states. In the age of development and new technology, it is likely that what we consider secrets or personal information is not as secret or personal as we once believed. Important pieces of evidence or information have often been found through illegal means, and this has led to many cases that change the way the constitution and the Fourth Amendment affect
In the case of Terry v. Ohio (1968), Detective McFadden, with 39 years of experience as a police officer, observed Terry and two other continuously staring into a store window. McFadden feared the three men were going to commit a robbery so he stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail. The Supreme Court presented the question was the stop and frisk of Terry and the other two men a violation of the Fourth Amendment? In their decision, the Supreme Court stated there was no violation since the detective had reasonable suspicion that a crime would be committed.
The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.
The personal liberties of Americans is what gives meaning to being an American. These liberties should be respected and upheld to the greatest efforts possible and should not be abridged by no means less than do process as exemplified by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the American Constitution. However, over time, we have learned about legislation that has been enacted by our government with said efforts to protect the nation. Hence, the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the confinement of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War, the Red Scare post-WWII, and the Pentagon Papers of 1971 are all examples that depict some of the behaviors performed by the federal government that would appear to infringe on these liberties.
Is war really a battle fought between two nations or more? The oxford definition of war is a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. In relation to war, racial profiling can be seen as an undeclared war. An undeclared war is a term used for disagreement fought without an official declaration. The undeclared war between male minorities and police forces is a constant issue that is being surpassed in our society.
The Fourth Amendment is “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” In other words, it is against the law for police to search any person without probable cause and an issued warrant. (Cartoon Surveillance) This protects the privacy of the innocent people that may not be considered guilty. However, giving the people a right to a warrant is only giving them an advantage, while the police and the government have a disadvantage.
Our founding fathers created the Bill Of Rights which are the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. One of the most important amendments is the Fourth Amendment. It states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”(p. 11). What are our founding fathers were trying to do is keep our country from a police state, a state in which law enforcement could enter our homes without probable cause. This protection provides the citizens of the
Can the state try you twice for the same crime? Well that is where Double Jeopardy comes in under the protection of the Fifth Amendment. Double Jeopardy basically means that the court can’t find a defendant guilty for the same crime twice. There are several reasons why there is double jeopardy protection. First to protect that person from financial, emotional and social repercussions.