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
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).
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.
You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda Warnings including; definition, history, importance to society, constitutional issues, and pro’s and con’s of having the Miranda Warnings incorporated into standard police procedures.
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:
As a result of the Miranda case, all persons detained by the police should be informed of four things before being questioned:
Friedman, S. (2014, March 10). You have the right to ... not much: Why are there no 'Miranda rights'
Miranda argued that his rights were violated because he admitted to the crime without knowing his rights, which should have been said to him when he was arrested. He claimed that the police had obtained his confession unconstitutionally. (Gitlin) He also mentioned that the police admitted to not telling him his rights. He reminded the Supreme Court that the...
Leo, R. A., & Thomas, G. C. (1998). The Miranda Debate: Law, Justice, and Policing. In R. A. Leo, & G. C. Thomas, The Miranda Debate: Law, Justice, and Policing (p. 343). Boston, Massachusetts: Northeastern University Press.
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.
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
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
Miranda also protects suspects from overzealous police officers. Although most law-enforcement agents in the United States are decent men and women, some abuse their power. They may try to coerce suspects into giving false confessions. Time and time again, we read of cases where suspects were forced to make confessions because an overzealous or prejudiced police officers want to close a case. The story of Rubin Hurricane Carter, made popular by the motion picture of the same name, demonstrated how lives could be destroyed when vindictive and manipulating detectives abuse their power. The Miranda Warning helps keep abuses in check. If the law is used correctly, the guilty would receive their due punishment. When police officers inform suspects of their rights before interrogation, it is very unlikely that the judge presiding over any case would throw out statements made during questioning.
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.