Fare v. Michael C1 In Fare v. Michael C the respondent was brought to be questioned about a murder. After being read his Miranda Rights the respondent requested to have his probation officer present. The police denied his request and he agreed to be questioned. The court however denied the motion due to the respondent waiving his rights to have legal counsel. Miranda v. Arizona covers having legal counsel present when being questioned and that the accused can refuse to talk. The respondent in the
Words: 906 - Pages: 4
However there are Miranda exception; The Supreme Court here, in a 5-4 decision, announces a "Public-Safety" exception to Miranda. If there's indication of a missing weapon, the officer may resolve that issue prior to worrying about Miranda warning (New York v. Quarles). On the off chance that a law enforcement officer is challenged with the risk of threat to people in general safety, law enforcement officers are not required to instantly read suspects in criminal cases their Miranda warnings first
Words: 264 - Pages: 2
1.2 Miranda Warning and Waiver of Rights 1.2.1 Miranda Warning A. Definition 1. Miranda warning/rights- The Miranda warning or the Miranda rights as it is also known as is a right to a suspect that they can or may remain silent and is given by a police officer in the United States to a criminal suspect when they are in custody (or in a custodial interrogation). Furthermore, these rights or warning is done prior to them being interrogated in order to preserve the admissibility of their
Words: 1113 - Pages: 5
Do you know the Miranda rights.The Miranda rights give the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in court of law,you have the right to an attorney,if you can't afford an attorney one will be provided for you,do you understand these rights I have just read you. With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me.These are the Miranda rights and everyone deserve them. People don’t have to say anything without their lawyer.The people all have these rights.
Words: 475 - Pages: 2
“I plead the 5th” is a statement that most people only hear on television crime dramas, but it remains many Americans’ only knowledge of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. It receives far less attention then the fierce political debates that rage around the 1st or 2nd Amendments. The common impression of the amendment is that it only exists to protect criminals from prosecution.1 Yet the protections it provides apply to all citizens of the United States and remain just as important now as when
Words: 943 - Pages: 4
with the case Miranda v Arizona. In this case, the majority decision ruled to protect suspects’ rights, extending equality of protection regardless of legal knowledge or background, not only highlighting the trends of human rights and equality in the Sixties, but also the tensions between criminal rights versus public safety, demonstrating a shift from the conservative ‘law and order’ jurisprudence to more liberal methods of interrogation and conviction. On March 2, 1963, Ernesto Miranda kidnapped
Words: 1921 - Pages: 8
The Warren Court left an unprecedented legacy of judicial activism in the area of civil rights law as well as in the area of civil liberties—specifically, the rights of the accused as addressed in Amendments 4 through 8. In the period from 1961 to 1969, the Warren Court examined almost every aspect of the criminal justice system in the United States, using the 14th Amendment to extend constitutional protections to all courts in every State. This process became known as the “nationalization” of the
Words: 2336 - Pages: 10
Davenport March 2, 2010 G Period Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Ernesto Miranda had been living a somewhat poverish life in Phoenix,Arizona in the year of 1963. A woman had been kidnapped and raped. After she reported to the police, there had been a line up and she was able to identify Mr. Miranda. He was therefore arrested, charged with the two horrendous crimes, and questioned by police for an estimate of two hours. The officers who had been questioning Miranda had failed to inform him of his 5thamendment
Words: 806 - Pages: 4
Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) Facts: Defendant Ernesto Miranda was taken into custody and put into an interrogation room after he was accused of rape and kidnapping. After he was interrogated by two officers for two hours he was pushed to give a written confession. During his interrogation Miranda was never made aware of his basic rights and the confession stated that he had voluntary provided this information. The officers claimed that the confession was made without any promises
Words: 618 - Pages: 3
In the given scenario the problem projected by the police captain is that the young officers who come to the police force are not at all good at doing paper work, they find it boring and hate it. They are much interested to stay out on the streets, either in cars or on a beat instead of doing paper work while sitting in the office. They frequently put off the job or do it inadequately which results in unclear and ambiguous reports which cause the police department to lose court cases. Another problem
Words: 298 - Pages: 2
