This a great question and I believe you have to break the scenario down to determine when the "Miranda Warning" should have been used. The first sentence states, "while on patrol, Officer Norman heard a scream from the backyard of a house." Officer Norman is performing his duties and hears a scream from behind a house. This event happened within the normal scope of his duties. The second sentence states, "the officer proceeded to the back of the house, where he observed two people, a badly beaten victim and a young man (Tom) standing over her." After hearing the scream, Officer Norman responds to the back of the house to investigate the scream. Officer Norman is still within the scope of his duties. The next sentence states, "shocked by the sight of the victim, …show more content…
The next couple of sentences is where Officer Norman should have read the "Miranda Warning." Tom responded, “I killed her and threw the baseball bat over the fence.” Officer Norman is still correct here because he is trying to determine if there has being a crime committed. Officer Norman restrained the young man, called for an ambulance, and retrieved the bat. In my opinion, I believe Officer Norman did exactly what he should have and there is no violation of the "Miranda Right." The next sentence is where Officer Norman violates the "Miranda Rights." While waiting for the ambulance to arrive, Officer Norman asked the young man what his motive was for injuring the woman. Since Tom is under arrest, Officer Norman is questioning him about the crime which will implement him thus violation Tom's "Miranda Rights." As for the motion to suppress the statement, Tom made about killing her and throwing the bat over the fence, this statement should not be suppressed. According to the reading, in regards to discovery and investigation of criminal activity, there are two ways an officer learns of a crime discover it themselves or a citizen reports the
Miranda rights are the entitlements every suspect has. An officer of the law is required to make these rights apparent to the suspect. These are the rights that you hear on every criminal investigation and policing show in the country, “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you, you have the right to consult an attorney, if you can no t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.” After the suspect agrees that he or she understands his/her rights, the arrest and subsequent questioning and investigation may continue. These are liberties that were afforded to suspected criminals in the Miranda Vs Arizona. However, with every rule there also exceptions like: Maryland v. Shatzer, Florida v. Powell, and Berghuis v. Thompkins.
There are pros and cons with Miranda Warnings and just as with anything you have to take the good with the bad. Pros would be that Miranda Warnings were meant to be used as a tool to
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects. After an arrest is made, before they may begin questioning they must first advise the suspect of their rights, and make sure that the suspect understands them. These rights are known as the Miranda Warnings and include:
Miranda rights, also known as the Miranda warning, is a warning given by police in the United States to suspects in custody before they are interrogated. The name Miranda rights comes from the case Miranda v. Arizona, where the Supreme Court held that the admission of incriminating statements by a suspect who has not been read their rights, violates one's right to counsel. Therefore, if a police officer does not inform a suspect of their Miranda rights, they may not interrogate that person and cannot use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a court of law (Miranda Warning, 2014).... ... middle of paper ... ...
The case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) is one of the most important cases in history. It brought about prominent rights that are still existent today in 2015 regarding interrogations and custody. The results of this case are still seen in the current criminal justice system. However, even though the rights that were given to the system by the court, there are still instances today in which these Miranda rights are violated. The concept of Miranda has evolved a lot from a court case to a code used by law enforcement during custodies and investigations.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (The Consitution of the United States, Article I) In conclusion,this can prove why miranda rights are important to american society with three reasons that are due process, provide a free attorney,and cops warning to citizens.Miranda rights are a prerequisite piece of information for citizens and police,citizens need to remember their miranda
The Miranda rights ensure a fair trial for everyone. The rights ensure that the accused has fair representation. Everyone wherathe suspected of a crime or not should be entitled to a fair trial. Police should be required to say this, so that people who don’t know their rights can be protected by the constitution. If people didn’t have the rights this would lead to an unfair trial that will be up to the government who wins. These rights make sure that the government doesn’t control the people. The United States of America stands for freedom and equality. The Miranda rights protect the freedoms of the
The Miranda warnings stem from a United States Court’s decision in the case, Miranda v. Arizona. There are two basic conditions that must be met for Miranda warnings to be required: the suspect must be in official police custody and the suspect must be under interrogation. The suspect goes through a booking process after an arrest. The suspect will have a bond hearing shortly after the completion of the booking process or after arraignment. The arraignment is the suspect’s first court appearance to officially hear the charges filed against him or her and to enter a plea. The preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding determines if there is substantial evidence for the suspect to be tried for the crime charged. In this essay, I will identify and describe at least four rights afforded criminal defendants at the arrest stage and during pretrial. I will analyze the facts presented and other relevant factors in the scenario provided. I will cite legal authority to support my conclusions.
The actual Miranda warning is very short and covers all of person’s rights. The actual Miranda warning is as follows:
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
As a result of the Miranda case, all persons detained by the police should be informed of four things before being questioned:
The first thing that should be thought about prior to any form of interrogation is the suspect’s rights; particularly his or her Miranda Rights. Also known as the Miranda warnings, “the purpose of [which] depends on whether you are the law enforcement officer or the suspect. From a suspect's point of view, it is to remind you that you have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself. From an officer's point of view, it is to help preserve the admissibility of your statements in a criminal proceeding” (Second Call Defense, 2014). There are four main principles to the Miranda statement that an officer will read; although the exact wording may change from police department to police department. Miranda warnings or rights basically state that: you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you, you have the right to an attorney, and you may be appointed an attorney if you cannot afford one. In addition, an individual may wave his rights outlined within the Miranda statements. Suspects can waive their rights to a lawyer and to remain silent by knowingly and voluntari...
This source explains the rights that should be told to a suspect that is arrested, the fifth and Sixth Amendments. It also explains how Miranda was identified as the criminal and what happened in the interrogation room. This source helped me understand the specific amendments that apply to Miranda Rights.
Although so much is going on and the plot is anything but calm she demonstrates it as. “Silence is discipline. Even while being provoked, lied to, and lied on, insulted and maligned. (Souljah) When the officer read midnight his Miranda rights Midnight then wonders why individuals do not actually stay silent when red that, so he does so and actually stays silent.