ipl-logo

Police Exception Questions: Miranda V. Arizona

687 Words3 Pages

Final Exam Essay Question #1
Question: What did Miranda v. Arizona ultimately decide and how did it impact police questioning? What is the role of the current public safety exception in terms of Miranda and its use? Be sure to include specific discussions to the original cases and subsequent cases that support when Miranda applies in public safety cases.

Response:

Miranda v. Arizona was a case that focused on four separate court cases that involved custodial interrogations (USC, 2015). Each of these cases involved subjects being questioned by officers in rooms cut off from the general public. The main issue with these interrogations was the fact that none of the subjects were given a full advisory of their rights at the beginning of their …show more content…

Arizona case stated that a criminal suspect must make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive certain constitutional rights prior to questioning (Ortmeier, 2006). These constitution rights consisted of their right to remain silent; to be given an explanation on how anything they say can be used against them; their right to an attorney; and their right to have an attorney appointed to represent them if they cannot afford one. Additionally, Metgzar (2010) indicated without rights advisory, anything admitted by a subject in an interrogation will not be useable in there trial. The ruling also encouraged the expansion of Fifth Amendment and other constitutional …show more content…

Arizona public-safety exception was established to weaken the constitutional guarantees once afforded to criminal suspects by the cases original ruling (Belson, 1985). Moreover, in the case of New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court stated that a police officer’s concern for public safety can justify a failure to give Miranda warnings. This in turn allowed law enforcement to engage in unwarned interrogations, while the government is allowed to introduce the statements as direct evidence. However, the public safety exception only applied in situations where there is an immediate threat to the general public. A common example could be when a suspect is hiding a weapon in public place. In this situation an officer can question them on the location of the weapon without giving them their Miranda rights advisory. In the end, White (2015) indicates this historic case law works to protect the rights of citizens and to increase professionalism of the police

Show More
Related

  • Ernesto Miranda Case Study

    174 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    694 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman when she was walking home from work in Phoenix, Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and asked a series of questions about the incident. He was questioned for two hours by the police until he confessed to his crimes. The police had unconstitutionally obtained Miranda’s confession. While Ernesto was being questioned he was not informed of the fifth amendment which protects one from being held accountable for committing a crime without being properly informed of one’s rights, and sixth amendment that promises citizens a speedy trial, a fair jury, and an attorney.

    Read More

  • Case Brief Miranda Vs Arizona

    688 Words  | 3 Pages

    Also, it is important to note that the reason the case is cited as being Miranda v. Arizona is because it was the first on the docket. This case involved all of the following cases: 1) No. 759. Miranda v. Arizona, 2) No. 760 Vignera v. New York, 3) No. 761, Westover v. United States, and 4) No. 584, California v. Stewart. It is listed as Miranda v. Arizona because it was listed first on the

    Read More

  • Miranda's Confession, Injustice In Pheonix, Arizona

    364 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Pheonix, Arizona for the kidnapping and raping of a woman. When questioned by police officers, Miranda would eventually give a confession, and sign it, which wasn 't the case.. Before the court, this confession would be used against Miranda, and with it, the implication that it was received voluntarily and with the convicted knowing his rights. Miranda was convicted with a 20-30 year sentence. Upon eventually learning that his confession was obtained unlawfully, Miranda would appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, asking for an overturn, and when that fell through, would turn to the United States Supreme Court, filing a habeas corpus.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Court Case Essay

    1005 Words  | 5 Pages

    This court’s decision was that Miranda’s rights were not violated (United States Courts). Ernesto wasn’t happy with this decision, so he appealed it. The Arizona Supreme Court also decided that Miranda did not have any rights violated due to the fact that Miranda supposedly never asked for an attorney (Oyez). Miranda said he had asked for one, but was denied one (Miranda V. Arizona). Miranda then found other people who had the same problem as him.

    Read More

  • Case Study Of Miranda V. Arizona

    845 Words  | 4 Pages

    These mandatory "Miranda Rights" begin with "you have the right to remain silent, anything said can and will be used against you in a court of law. " The police are to enforce this and inform the suspect of his or her right to an attorney and allow for a defendant's attorney to accompany them during interrogations. If they can't afford an attorney, the court must assign one to them. These are the rights denied to Miranda when he signed a statement and confessed, illegally admitting him to

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

    879 Words  | 4 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart 384 U.S. 436 86 S. Ct. 1602; 16 L. Ed. 2d 694; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2817; 10 A.L.R.3d 974. This case involves the fifth and sixth amendments of the US constitution, as well as the grand jury indictment clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his

    Read More

  • Why Was Salinas Silence A True Exercise Of The Fifth Amendment?

    1407 Words  | 6 Pages

    Both courts affirmed the lower court’s judgment and rejected Salinas’ claim that his silence was used in chief violation of the Fifth Amendment. Issue: Can one fairly conclude that an individual who agreed to be questioned has revoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection? Was Salinas’ silence a true exercise of this amendment? Rule: The petitioner must specifically call on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the time he relies on it in order to receive the benefit. Decision: Salinas’ claim fails because he did not verbally invoke this Fifth Amendment privilege in his response to the officer’s questions.

    Read More

  • Danny Escobedo Pros And Cons

    1392 Words  | 6 Pages

    To ensure that your rights are protected under the United States Constitution, the Miranda warning must be read to you upon an arrest. Danny Escobedo, a 22-year-old murder suspect, was arrested and taken to police headquarters for interrogation in connection with a shooting of his brother-in-law, about 11 days prior. He had been arrested shortly after the shooting, but was released after making no statement and had his lawyer obtain a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. In police custody, Escobedo confessed to firing the shot that killed the victim. He was not advised of his right to remain silent, violating his Fifth Amendment, and police interrogated Escobedo for several hours, while repeatedly denying his request to consult with

    Read More

  • Arizona Vs Miranda Essay

    829 Words  | 4 Pages

    The legal case of Arizona v. Miranda, which took place in 1966, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that had a profound impact on criminal procedure in the country. The case involved Ernesto Miranda, a man who had been arrested and charged with kidnapping and rape in Phoenix, Arizona. The overall issue of the case was the admissibility of the confession that Miranda had made to the police during his interrogation, which had been obtained without informing him of his constitutional rights. The court ultimately ruled that Miranda's confession could not be used as evidence against him, as the police had violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This decision led to the creation of what today is known

    Read More

  • Essay On Miranda Vs Arizona

    1213 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Earl Warren Accomplishments

    1055 Words  | 5 Pages

    Arizona that criminals must be informed of their rights before being prosecuted. Today, this ruling requires that police inform criminals of their right to remain silent, and that anything they say can be used against them in court. These rights, also known as Miranda rights include the criminal’s right to an attorney. If the police do not read a person’s Miranda rights when arresting a criminal, the court judging the case can discard any evidence that the criminal reveals while in police custody since he or she was not informed of their right to remain silent. While the Miranda decision was unpopular at the time, it was critical to ensuring that criminals were being persecuted for the appropriate crime on clear evidence and received the right to a fast and proper

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    790 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arizona examined Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights in detail. The court stressed the coercive character of custodial interrogations and the risk of defendants accidentally waiving their fundamental rights. Suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and have legal representation during interrogations. The court stressed the need to clearly explain these rights to suspects so they can make informed decisions. Miranda's warnings were implemented as procedural safeguards after the analysis.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    890 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Stand Your Ground Laws: The Case Of Rodriguez V. State

    959 Words  | 4 Pages

    Trayvon Martin was only seventeen years old when he was shot and killed by George Zimmerman on February 26, 2012 in Sanford, Florida. Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend prior to the shooting, not partaking in any sort of criminal activity. He was carrying a bag of Skittles in his pocket, not a weapon of any kind. Despite this, Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin in “self-defense”. He was charged with second-degree murder, but found not guilty.

    Read More

More about Police Exception Questions: Miranda V. Arizona

Open Document