Miranda vs Arizona

 

Miranda vs. Arizona On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at Arizona his home. The police took him into custod, and transported him to a !hoeni" police station. The witness whom had #led the complaint identi#ed him. Miranda was then lead to the interro$ation room. Then, the police o%cers proceeded to &uestion him. Miranda had never 'een in(ormed o( his ri$hts prior to the &uestionin$ &uestionin$.. )e was never told he had the ri$ht to an attorne to 'e present durin$ the &uestionin$. A(ter two hours, the o%cer o%cers s had succe succeede eded d in $ettin $ettin$ $ a writte written n co con(e n(ess ssion ion si$ned si$ned ' Mirand Miranda. a. *o *oca cated ted on th the e top o( the con(ess con(ession ion was a tped tped para$r para$raph aph st stati atin$ n$ that that the co con(e n(ess ssion ion was volunt voluntar ar,, withou withoutt an promi promises ses o( immuni immunit t or threat threats. s. The statement also said that Miranda si$ned the con(ession +with (ull knowled$e o( m le$al ri$hts, understandin$ understandin$ an statement  make ma 'e used a$ainst me.+  The -upreme -upreme ourt went on to sa that the process process o( interro$ation interro$ation is intimidatin$ ' its ver nature, and that a suspect must 'e read his or her ri$hts to counteract this intimidation. The ourt continued ' speci#call outlinin$ how a suspect must 'e in(ormed o( his or her ri$hts. /irst, a suspect needs to 'e read his ri$hts onl 'e(ore he is to 'e interro$ated. An o%cer ma arrest a suspect without readi readin$ n$ th the e Mirand Miranda a ri$hts ri$hts as lon$ lon$ as her does not not &uest &uestion ion or in inter terrro$a o$ate te the suspect in an wa.

0hen &uestionin$ 'e$ins, the #rst statement to 'e made is +ou have the ri$ht to remain silent and re(use to answer &uestions. 2o ou understand+ The o%cer must receive a ver'al or written con#rmation that the suspect understands his ri$ht to remain silent. The o%cer is then to sa +Anthin$ ou do sa can and will 'e used a$ainst ou in a court o( law. 2o ou understand+ Once a$ain, as with

 

all the Miranda ri$hts, the o%cer must have a ver'al or written acknowled$ement o(  his ri$ht. The ne"t statement is +ou have the ri$ht to consult an attorne 'e(ore speakin$ to the police and to have an attorne present durin$ &uestio &uestionin$ nin$ now or in the (uture. 2o ou understand+ That statement is (ollowed ' +( ou cannot a4ord an attorne, one will 'e appointed (or ou 'e(ore an &uestionin$ i( ou wish. 2o ou unders understan tand+ d+ The ne"t ne"t Mirand Miranda a ri$ht ri$ht states states that that +( ou decide decide to answer answer &uest &ue stion ions s now without without an attor attorne ne prese present nt ou will will st still ill have have the ri$ht ri$ht to stop stop answerin$ at an time until ou talk to an attorne. 2o ou understand+ The last Miranda ri$ht speci#call asks +5nowin$ and understandin$ our ri$hts as  have e"plained them to ou, are ou willin$ to answer m &uestions without an attorne present+

 These Miranda ri$hts have revolutionized revolutionized the wa police handle suspects. Most ud$es hold these ri$hts as critical to the due process o( Americans. -impl con(usin$ one word, (or e"ample sain$ +anthin$ ou sa ma 'e used a$ainst ou+, as opposed to +can and will 'e used a$ainst ou+, has 'een $rounds (or dismis dis missa sal. l. 0hile 0hile some (eel (eel that that it is unre unreas asona ona'le 'le (or the $uilt $uilt to $o (ree (ree on technicalities, it is currentl held that it is necessar to occasionall allow the $uilt to $o (ree to protect the innocent (orm undue hardship. n the !hilippines, 7nder this doctrine, all *aw En(orcement A$encies O%cers, prior to an &uestionin$ durin$ custodial investi$ation, the person must 'e warned that he has a ri$ht to remain silent, that an statement he $ives ma 'e used as evidence a$ainst him, and that he has the ri$ht to the presence o( an attorne, either retained or appointed. The de(endant ma waive e4ectuation o( these ri$hts, provided the waiver is made voluntaril, knowin$l, and intelli$entl.

 

 The onstitution even onstitution  even adds the more strin$ent re&uirement that the waiver must 'e in writin$ and made in the presence o( counsel. -ection 18, Article  o( the onstitution reads onstitution reads

-E. :1; An person investi$ation (ortothe commission o( an shall 18. have the ri$ht to 'eunder in(ormed o( his ri$ht remain silent and to o4ense have competent and independent counsel pre(era'l o( his own choice. ( the person cannot a4ord the services o( counsel, he must 'e provided with one.  These ri$hts cannot 'e waived waived e"cept in writin$ and in the presence presence o( counsel. :8; <o torture, torture, (orce, violence, threat, intimidation, or an other means which vitiate the (ree will shall 'e used a$ainst him. -ecret detention places, solitar, incommunicado, or other similar (orms o( detention are prohi'ited. :3; An con(ession or admission o'tained in violation o( this or -ection 1= hereo( shall 'e inadmissi'le in evidence a$ainst him. :>; The law shall provide (or penal and civil sanctions (or violations o( this section as well as compensation to and reha'ilitation o( victims o( torture or similar practices, and their (amilies.

 This case permanentl chan$ed law en(orcement en(orcement procedures procedures not onl in the 7- and in the !hilippines !hilippines 'ut also in all countries, such that people taken into police custod must 'e (ormall advised o( their ri$hts 'e(ore &uestionin$ which 'asicall sa(e$uards the constitutional ri$ht o( ever mem'er o( the societ.  This doctrine also discoura$es discoura$es the police to commit a'uses on the arrested arrested person. This serves as a check?and?'alance sstem (or an and all police o%cers involved in the case.