Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction to miranda rights
Introduction to miranda rights
Introduction to miranda rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Introduction to miranda rights
This paper will go through the first arrest that a new police officer did while responding to a house break in. It will show what a FTL would say to the new officer on how they did with the situation after the arrest. We will identify four issues during the arrest that related to the Miranda Laws. Then, we will try and relate these issues to a historical case. Later, we will carefully analysis the situation and see if we could resolve the issues or not. We will then go over how these issues could have been prevent from happening. Law Enforcement and Miranda Warnings The FTL should have told the arresting officer once he realized the suspect did not speak English, he should have notified his supervisor. If the young male was a juvenile, the officer should make sure to contact the suspect’s parents or legal guardian. Before the officer can even begin to read the suspects Miranda rights to him, two things need to happen. One if he is a minor, his parents need to be present with him. Two, since the suspect does not speak or understand English the officer’s supervisor mush find a professional interpreter that speaks that language. Most departments have either someone in the department or a call list of people that can do that. The officer or his supervisor should also make sure that the interpreter writes the Miranda Warnings out in the suspect’s language so he can read them and sign them. The case Florida vs Powell (08-1175) Mr. Powell was place into custody for suspicion of illegally owning a firearm. The officers said Mr. Powell waived his rights to counsel. They proceeded to question him in an interrogation room. Since Mr. Powell did not speak or understand English very well, the Florida Supreme Court over turned his case. Th... ... middle of paper ... ...e of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings. Especially in custodial interrogations when being questioned by law enforcement while in custody or deprived of freedom of action. The court made it very clear that the defendant has to be warned prior to any questioning so they fully understand they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel being present. They also need to understand that if they cannot afford counsel one will be appointed to them by the courts before any questioning. The Supreme Court reversed the cases Miranda, Vignera, Westover and then affirmed the Stewart case in California. Works Cited Criminal.findlaw.com Peak, K. J. (2013). Policing America, Vitalsource for Kaplan University [VitalSouce bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://splashurl.com/qc99jsl www.usconstitutionnet/miranda.html
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 taught in the lectures, it is impossible for police officers to win the war against crime without bending the rules, however when the rules are bent so much that it starts to violate t...
Miranda Vs Arizona was a United States Supreme Court case in 1966. The court “ruled that a criminal suspect must make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive certain constitutional rights prior to questioning” (Ortmeier, 2005, 285). This ruling meant that suspects must be aware of their right to remain silent and that if they choose to speak to the police the conversation can be used against them in a court of law. If they do decide to speak under police it must not be under false promises
One of the most disturbing trends in American policing in recent years has been the militarization of police weaponry and tactics. In his new book, “The Rise of the Warrior Cop”, author Radley Balko traces the roots of American law enforcement from the constables of colonial times to present day SWAT teams and special response units. With the high controversy surrounding the “war on drugs” and the “war on terrorism,” policymakers have signed off on a dangerously aggressive style of policing that too often leads to unnecessary deaths and injuries. Some people say that modern law enforcement is on a collision course with our Bill of Rights and is unconstitutional. In the book “ Rise of the Warrior Cop” the author talks about how modern day policing are adapting mostly all military tactic. These wars are more than just metaphors designed to rally public support and secure all the money they can to support these programs. They change the way we think about what the police do. Wars mean shooting first and asking questions later. Wars require military tactics and weaponry. Wars mean civilian casualties. Are we at war with our own people?
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.
This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.
Rutkin, Aviva. "Policing The Police." New Scientist 226.3023 (2015): 20-21. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the landmark case of Miranda v Arizona and declared that, whenever a person is arrested by the police should be informed prior to questioning the right under the Fifth Amendment (" the Fifth Amendment ") not to make statements that might incriminate himself.
“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.
Walker, S., & Katz, C. (2012). Police in America: An Introduction (8th Edition ed.). New York:
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.
...nforcement. Officers had an upper hand when suspects did not know their rights making it easier for them to sneak tactics through to get confessions. Another reason they it as a disadvantage was because according to the dissent “some cases cannot be solved without confessions”. Also they implied the “welfare” of our society was at stake because it would let criminals run free, if the Miranda rights weren’t stated to them correctly. This was a “hazardous” experiment which could have a dismal outcome and prove to be very ineffective in the future. Furthermore, the dissenting opinion on the way the police officers had treated suspects amendment rights were “exaggerated” and that the outcome was only to favor the accused more favorably.
Miranda v Arizona went all the way to the Supreme Court. There the Supreme Court ruled that the police do have a responsibility to inform a subject of an interrogation of their constitutional rights. The constitutional rights have to do with self-incrimination, and the right to counsel before, during and after questioning.
Gul, Zakir, Hakan Hekim, and Ramazan Terkesil. “Controlling Police (Excessive) Force: The American Case.” International Journal of Human Sciences 10.2 (2013): 285-303. Academic Search Premier. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.