Views: 1489
| ARTICLE | Rate This Article |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
"Miranda Rights" or "Miranda Warnings" as we know them today are derived from a 1966 case involving Ernesto Arturo Miranda and the State of Arizona in which Ernesto Miranda was accused of rape and kidnapping. Police interrogated Ernesto Miranda and obtained incriminating confessions regarding the charges which led to Miranda's conviction. Ernesto Miranda's attorney appealed and argued that the police violated his constitutional right to be free of self-incrimination (fifth amendment) and his right to legal council (sixth amendment). The United States Supreme Court agreed with Ernesto Miranda and set a legal precedence that required law enforcement to inform persons arrested for an alleged crime that they are not required to make statements of guilt and that while being questioned that they have the opportunity to consult with and have an attorney present to provide legal advice. From that decision, Miranda Rights or Miranda Warnings were born. What Does That Mean? Simply put, any time the police or any law enforcement officer seeks to obtain incriminating statements from someone detained or arrested for a crime in an INTERROGATION setting, the police are required to inform the person that the person is not compelled to make any statements which may self-incriminate that person. Further, if the person so chooses, the person has a right to consult with an attorney while talking to police. The easiest way to think of Miranda Rights is when the police seek to obtain a confession following an arrest. The fifth and sixth amendments in the Bill of Rights provides protections and citizens are not required to assist in their own prosecution unless they give up those rights which is the basis of Miranda Warnings. There is no "standard" way Miranda Warnings or Rights must be admonished by law enforcement. Law Enforcement is only required to make clear to an individual that any statements are not required and that an attorney can be consulted during questioning. Typical Miranda Warnings read something like the following:
What is an Interrogation? There are two types of inquires that law enforcement make with people suspected of crimes. Those are "Interviews" and "Interrogations". Interviews are non-custody questioning situations regarding a crime. Interviews are, but not limited to, situations such as a phone call conversation, a suspect voluntarily going to the police department and being "free" to leave at any time, police going to a suspect's residence without the intent to make an arrest. An interview is basically any situation that does not result in custody or control and allows the suspect to terminate contact with police at any time without consequence. An interrogation, in its most basic terms requires an arrest situation even without handcuffs on the person being questioned. An "arrest" is higher decree of control or detention. Obvious interrogation situations involve an arrest with handcuffs followed by questioning. Less obvious situations include situations such as a person who has not been arrested but is NOT free to leave at will and is being questioned in a setting such as a locked room or in the back seat of a squad car. The police can knowingly or unknowingly setup pscyological situations in which a person believes they are "arrested" or not free to leave at any time which CAN constitute an arrest situation which results in an interrogation. When Miranda Does Not Apply in Admissions Miranda does not apply during spontaneous admissions of crime. These times include when a person initiates and engages law enforcement in question and answer and makes incriminating statements during those times without first being admonished of Miranda Warnings. Admissions of guilt during a "custody" situation without being Mirandiized first are also generally deemed court admissible during times of spontaneous safety issues to an arresting officer or exigent circumstances to preserve evidence or to ensure public safety. Conclusion It is often misunderstood how Miranda should be applied. It is a widely accepted misconception that Miranda must always be read immediately following any arrest. TV police shows play a large role in that misconception. This simple formula should help you to understand when Miranda Warnings must be issued: Arrest + Questioning = Required Miranda admonishments. In the vast majority of everyday arrests, the police already have sufficient evidence, witnesses and probable cause to make an arrest and do not need to supplement the arrest with a confession. As such police do not read Miranda or question those arrested. It is important to remember that Miranda is NOT a law and is NOT addressed in the constitution. It is merely a court decision or precedence that requires law enforcement to REMIND a person of their right that they do not have to confess and if they choose to, that they can also talk to an attorney before making incriminating statements. Failing to advise Miranda Rights during a custody and questioning situation by law enforcement will simply result in any confession not being admissible in court. But never a basis for a violation of "civil rights" or a complete dismissal of criminal charges unless the sole evidence was the confession itself. |
ARTICLE RESOURCE: |
|
Syndicate This Article: [HTML (copy & paste)] |
| Rate this article! | Report Article |
( 0 Votes )
