Miranda V. Arizona Argumentative Essay

614 Words3 Pages

Dominique was pulled over and due to the possibility of intoxication and was brought to the Bar Harbor police station. Without being read his Miranda rights he was placed into an intoxilyzer room. While the police officer was setting up the equipment Dominique exclaimed “It’s not going to work” pg. 2 which the officer replied to saying “No?” and he answered “No, [be]cause I had two beers in an hour…” and explained why he thinks it wouldn’t work because he had experience with law enforcement in his family. After the police officer got all of his general information i.e. his address, vehicle, and other information. After he explained the test and Dominique “I’m not going to blow into [the machine] pg. 3 the police officer explained to him that he would have to sign a form to indicate that he refused to consent to a breathalyzer test. After signing the form he was informed that since he wasn’t from Maine that he would have a higher bail than normal and it would actually be $540 and that he could one phone call. The police officer steps out while Dominique makes a phone call to his brother asking for bail …show more content…

As it states on pg.5 “The person who is in custody and subject to interrogation must be advised of the rights referred to in Miranda v Arizona in order for statements made during the interrogation to be admissible against him or her at trial.”. The state argues that what he said was voluntary and that he was not under interrogation when he made the statement that he did about how much he had to drink. The sixth amendment states that one can’t incriminate oneself outside of Miranda rights. So anything said to the police or that the police have would be invalid because he wasn’t read and asked if he understood his rights. The fourth amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Therefor any video that they have of him in the police investigation room can be

Show More
Open Document