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

Facts A lady had an abortion performed through back alley means, and had medical complications that resulted in her being in the hospital and questioned by police. She gave them the name of the petitioner, Julius Wolf. The police then followed up on the lead and entered his office without a search warrant and seized items as evidence, one of which was a list of patients. The police then used that evidence to gather more testimony against Wolf.

In another way, the court case of Mallory v. Hogan is the right against self-incrimination in the fifth Amendment. William Mallory was found guilty and sentenced to jail with a fine. But, it was suspended and the court placed him on two years probation. However, within the time period of the probation, the Superior Court "appointed referee ordered Malloy to testify about gambling and other criminal activities in Hartford County." Mallory refused to incriminate himself and he was imprison for contempt the court and held until he willing to confess himself.

On October 31, 1968, in Cleveland, Ohio a Cleveland police officer, named Martin McFadden, saw three men acting suspiciously around a jewelry store, which he believed they were casing a job. The officer, McFadden, walked up to three men and asked a few questions; afterwards, he proceeded to stop and frisk them. McFadden found a pistol in John Terry’s pocket, a revolver in Richard Chilton’s pocket and nothing was found on Carl Katz. The officer arrested Terry and Chilton for carrying concealed weapons and Carl Katz was sent free. Terry was convicted and sentenced to three years in jail.

The majority explained that the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, allows for officers to arrests without a warrant where officers have probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime in the presence of the officer. In this case, the officers undoubtedly concluded that a felony had been committed, and the question for the Court was if the officers had sufficient probable cause to believe that Pringle had committed a crime. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, that question was a fact dependent investigation as to whether circumstances allowed officers to conclude not only that a crime was committed but to have specific suspicion of Pringle. In the written opinion Justice Rehnquist stated that three men riding in a car where drugs are found, with all three suspects denying possession, affords officers probable cause to conclude that one or all have committed a crime. The Court rejected Pringle’s assertion that the probable cause in this case amounted to “guilt by association,” distinguishing this case from others in which searches of groups had been limited.

In 150 Conn. 220, 187 A. 2d 744, The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors held that the protection against self-incrimination under the Fifth

On April 29, 2001, in Detroit, Michigan, police were immediately called to the scene of a shooting. Found by the police on the ground of a gas station parking lot, Anthony Covington had suffered a shot to the abdomen. When asked the standard questions such as, who, what, and when, Covington responded, “Rick.” After being shot through a door at Rick Bryant’s house, Covington drove to the nearest gas station and called 911. The questioning occurred for about five minutes until emergency medical services arrived to assist Covington.

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was a case that was brought to the United States Supreme Court through a Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona. At the Trial Court of Arizona the written confession of Ernesto Miranda was admitted as evidence and the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the case. Id. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Id. Issue: Was the constitutional right of the V amendment that protects against self-incrimination violated in Ernesto Miranda’s case?

In my court case in 1963 Ernesto Arturo Miranda is being accused of kidnapping, and raping. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, saying that the police had gotten his confession unconstitutionally. The U.S Supreme Court review the case in 1966. Chief Justice Earl Warren, said that the confession could not be used as evidence because the evidence was gotten unconstitutionally. Miranda was not told that he had rights like the fifth and sixth amendment so he did not know, that is why the confession was not used as evidence.

Larry Hiibel was arrested and convicted in Nevada state court for failing to identify himself to a police officer who was investigating an assault. Some states including Nevada, has a law that requires a person to tell an officer his name if asked. Larry Hiibel challenged the conviction, claiming it violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the right not to incriminate himself and to be free from unreasonable searches. The state intermediate court and Supreme Court rejected his argument in affirming the conviction. At first when I read this I think that this arrest and conviction violated Larry Hiibel Fourth and Fifth Amendment because he was arrested for the action of remaining silent but in a 5-to-4 opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy,

When police arrested Miranda, they failed to inform him of his Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights before the interrogation. During the interrogation Miranda confessed to all of his alleged crimes and was taken to

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 meaning and purpose of the fifth amendment has changed the course of the United States justice system and will continue to advance. Foremost, the fifth amendment protects U.S citizens in many different circumstances. According to Cornell University Law School, ‘’The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional

The case involved an individual by the name of Danny Escobedo, who was arrested on January 19, 1960, for the murder of his brother-in-law. Escobedo was arrested without a warrant and interrogated; he did not make any statement to the police and was released after contacting his lawyer. On January 30, Benedict DiGerlando, told the police about Escobedo’s involvement in the crime that Escobedo “had fired the fatal shots” (Escobedo v. Illinois- Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court, 1999, pg.2). He was later arrested a second time and taken to the police headquarters. Soon enough Escobedo requested to have “advice from my lawyer”

Case Citation: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda, Plaintiff/ Appellant State of Arizona, Defendant/ Appellee Facts: This case represents the consolidation of four different cases, in which an accused individual confessed to a crime after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during the interrogation. The first case resolved Ernesto Miranda who was arrested and charged with kidnap and rape. He confesses and signed a written statement after a two-hour interrogation.

In 2007, the respondent Xavier Alvarez attended a meeting as a board member in Claremont, California, where he introduced himself as the following: “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor” (United States v Alvarez 1). In fact, Mr. Alvarez had never received said award, nor had he served in the United States Armed Forces. As a result of making said false statement, Alvarez was indicted under the Stolen Valor Act.