On 11/22/17, at approximately 2115 hours, 3225 W Gibson Ln. Phoenix, AZ 85009, Durango Jail housing unit 6, I randomly searched cell 17 and found a construction grade piece of fence sharpened on one end to make a point resembling a jail made shank. On 11/23/17, at approximately 1718 hours, I escorted Inmate Lemke, Tyler T372795 out of Durango 6 for questioning. I read Inmate Lemke his Miranda Rights from the standard issued Miranda Rights Card. I asked If Inmate Lemke understood his rights? Inmate Lemke stated, "Yes." I asked Inmate Lemke if he was willing to answer any of my questions? Inmate Lemke stated, "Yes." I asked Inmate Lemke If he knew if there was any known contraband discovered in his cell (#17) on 11/22? Inmate Lemke stated, "No." I asked Inmate Lemke if he was sure he had no idea that there was a shank in his cell? Inmate Lemke stated, "No." I asked Inmate Lemke If he knew who the shank belonged to? Inmate Lemke stated, "No." …show more content…
Approximately 1714 hours, I escorted Inmate Messer, Dylan T393618 out of Durango 6 for questioning.
I reading Inmate Messer his Miranda Rights from the standard issued Miranda Rights Card. I asked If Inmate Messer understood his rights? Inmate Messer stated, "Yes." I asked Inmate Messer if he was willing to answer any of my questions? Inmate Messer stated, "Yes." I asked Inmate Messer If he knew if there was any known contraband. Inmate Messer stated, "No." I asked Inmate Messer if he was sure he had no idea that there was a shank in his cell(#17) on 11/22? Inmate Messer stated, "No." I asked Inmate Messer If he knew who the shank belonged to? Inmate Messer stated,
"No." Approximately 1724 hours, I escorted Inmate Skulj, Alen T403011 out of Durango 6 for questioning. I reading Inmate Skulj his Miranda Rights from the standard issued Miranda Rights Card. I asked If Inmate Skulj understood his rights? Inmate Skulj stated, "Yes." I asked Inmate Skulj if he was willing to answer any of my questions? Inmate Skulj stated, "Yes." I asked Inmate Skulj If he knew if there was any known contraband(#17) on 11/22? Inmate Skulj stated, "No." I asked Inmate Skulj if he was sure he had no idea that there was a shank in his cell? Inmate Skulj stated, "No." I asked Inmate Skulj If he knew who the shank belonged to? Inmate Skulj stated "No." Approximately 1730 hours, I escorted Inmate Faber, Mark T343633 out of Durango 6 for questioning. I reading Inmate Faber his Miranda Rights from the standard issued Miranda Rights Card. I asked If Inmate Faber understood his rights? Inmate Faber stated, "Yes." I asked Inmate Faber if he was willing to answer any of my questions? Inmate Faber stated, "Yes." I asked Inmate Faber If he knew if there was any known contraband(#17) on 11/22? Inmate Faber stated, "No." I asked Inmate Faber if he was sure he had no idea that there was a shank in his cell? Inmate Faber stated, "No." I asked Inmate Faber If he knew who the shank belonged to? Inmate Faber stated, "No." On 11/25/17, at approximately 1808 hours, a picture of the piece of construction grade fence sharpened at one point, jail made shank, was downloaded and placed in locker #14 by Sgt. Johanning A9075. DAR's was served to all involving inmates. Keep-aways were placed on all involving inmates. Video was not reviewed as it could not be determined when the piece of fencing was acquired or when it was turned into a shank
I asked Inmate Dennis if anything happened in the hallway on the way to intake and he stated, “No. They just kept pulling me. I was walking but they kept trying to make me look cracked out and that I was fighting. I don’t know why they were doing that. And then they threw me in the cell.” I asked Inmate Dennis if he said anything to the detention officers as they were walking down the hall and he said, “The only thing I asked was ‘why the fuck you grab me for?’”
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.
Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.
...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.
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: 1. What is the difference between a. and a. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. 2.
As a result of the Miranda case, all persons detained by the police should be informed of four things before being questioned:
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 ... ...
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you can not afford an attorney one will be appointed to you” This may be differ from state to state as long as the concept is conveyed they was read their rights. Miranda Rights is mandatory across the United States due to the Miranda v. Arizona. In the following will explain what the 3 branches Judicial, Executive, and the Legislative have done to enforce this law or to change it, as well as the effect on the people.
In this paper I am going to be discussing the Miranda rights. What they mean to you, what they entitle you to, and how they came to be used in law enforcement today. I am discussing this topic because, one it is useful to me as a police officer, two they can be very difficult to understand, and three if they are not read properly to you when you are placed under an arrest it could actually get you off. I will start off by discussing the history and some details of the Miranda case.
From the moment an innocent individual enters the criminal justice system they are pressured by law enforcement whose main objective is to obtain a conviction. Some police interrogation tactics have been characterized as explicit violations of the suspect’s right to due process (Campbell and Denov 2004). However, this is just the beginning. Additional forms of suffering under police custody include assaults,
known to be sent via the mail to an inmate concealed in packages of all
Two police officers began interrogating him, and after two hours later the police officers came out with a written confession signed by Mr. Miranda. On the top of the confession was a paragraph that stated, “that the confession was made voluntarily, without threats or promises of immunity and "with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." Once at the trial the officers presented this evidence to the judge. With this explicit evidence the judge found Miranda guilty of kidnapping and raping. He was sentenced to jail from 20 to 30 years on each account. The Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that his constitutional rights were not violated, and also emphasized that Miranda never requested a counsel during his interrogation.
The Miranda Rights themselves are “...part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement are
For the past decade, many Right Wing organizations have sort to change many of the laws, governing our rights and freedom. These laws were passed by congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Miranda Warning is one of these laws. The Miranda Warning is intended to protect the guilty as well as the innocent and should be protected at all costs. Without the law, many suspects may be treated unfairly. It is a necessary safeguard.