Arturo Miranda Research Paper

The meaning and purpose of the fifth amendment has changed the course of the United States justice system and will continue to advance. Foremost, the fifth amendment protects U.S citizens in many different circumstances. According to Cornell University Law School, ‘’The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional

In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Court upheld a warrantless, suspicionless checkpoint designed to detect evidence of drunk driving. In that case, police checkpoints were set up, at which all drivers were stopped and briefly (approximately 25 seconds) observed for signs of intoxication. If such signs were found, the driver was detained for sobriety testing, and if the indication was that the driver was intoxicated, an arrest was

So he did not have a lawyer and he did not know he had the right to have an attorney present. He was an immigrant so he did not have the knowledge of this anyway. He was convicted of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. Since he was not informed of his rights the charges was let go.

Although the Miranda Rights have helped many people throughout their cases, it has also hurt the police departments all across America. After the Miranda Rights were enforced to be used after arresting, the number of confessions from suspects fell sixteen percentage points. It also affected the number of cases solved because the suspects no longer confessed about the wrong they did so there were large number of cases that never gotten solved. Many crimes were let unsolved and they dramatically fell in numbers like the cases of violent crimes solved dropped 25% and property crimes solved fell as well. To put the numbers in perspective , if the Miranda rights weren 't put into place between 8,000 to 36,000, or more robberies would have been solved in 1995 according to Paul Cassell, that 's a lot of robberies that could have been

Larry Hiibel was arrested and convicted in Nevada state court for failing to identify himself to a police officer who was investigating an assault. Some states including Nevada, has a law that requires a person to tell an officer his name if asked. Larry Hiibel challenged the conviction, claiming it violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the right not to incriminate himself and to be free from unreasonable searches. The state intermediate court and Supreme Court rejected his argument in affirming the conviction. At first when I read this I think that this arrest and conviction violated Larry Hiibel Fourth and Fifth Amendment because he was arrested for the action of remaining silent but in a 5-to-4 opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy,

the, 5th amendment of the United States Constitution by enforcing Due Process, the rights of the accused and the right to counsel. Ernesto Miranda was born in Mesa, Arizona in 1941. (Hogrogian, J. p.103) Ernesto Miranda lived a troublesome youth. At the age of fifteen he was convicted of stealing a car, later arrested for trying to rape a woman and arrested six times by the age of eighteen. (Burgan, M. p. 16) It was not until March 3, 1963 when an assault would lead Ernesto Miranda as the main suspect in what would turn out to be a landmark Supreme Court case.

The question about the federal government that I address in this assignment is about the citizens’ rights that the Fifth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution contains, along with the Miranda rights. Based on what we discussed in Chapter 4, the Fifth Amendment includes the right that protects the American citizens from self-incrimination in the event of an accusation. In that regard, the right, together with the Miranda right that gives citizens the right to clamp up provides immunity for the involved citizen against police interrogation that could culminate in forced and unfair self-incrimination. Even so, the current system of law enforcement is such that police officers can ask the accused any question they want without informing

The Miranda Rights are part of a preventative criminal procedure rule that states law enforcement are required to administer Miranda Rights to an individual who is in custody and is subject to direct questioning for a criminal violation of law. When a person is detained or taken into custodial arrest and interrogated for a criminal offense, if he or she wishes to remain silent the individual must expressly state that he or she chooses to remain silent. In addition, if the individual asserts that he or she wishes to speak to an attorney or have an attorney present, police must then cease interrogations and wait until

You Have the Right to Remain Silent..., sound familiar, this is the first of the Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights are the rights that any person who is taken into police custody is entitled to. As stated in the sixth amendment, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,...” this means that anyone taken into custody by authorities has the right to a trial to prove themselves either innocent or guilty. Some questions people might ask about the Miranda Rights are, “Why is it important for people to have their Miranda Rights read to them while they are being questioned by police?”, and “Why do people have the right to remain silent?”, or “Why should they have a right to have a lawyer present when they are being questioned?”

In the United States constitution there are important amendments written that help protect the American citizens form the government. Among those amendments is the Fifth Amendment which is to protect the people from incriminating themselves from unlawful justice. This was put in place so the people that are uninformed of the laws has a chance to speck with a lawyer before being question for a crime that they might not have committed. In the fifth amendment there is multiple parts, the first part is the Miranda rights which are given to you when you are being arrested.

Being silent does not mean that an individual has waived his or her Miranda rights, but there are certain words, gestures, or actions that can constitute waiving one's rights. Once someone has been formally charged with a crime and has made a request for an attorney, the Sixth Amendment protects defendants from officers attempting to gather incriminating evidence against them without the presence of their

The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.

Also, so is someone, specifically a person in authority, giving us the freedom of speech. Miranda v. Arizona does just that, when someone reads out the rules to us it can give some a sense of relief. One would think, “Oh great, I do not have to say this if I do not want to.” It does preserve freedom, and liberty, in the sense that we have the choice on whether or not we can confess or not. In one article it states, “...anyone in police custody must be told four things before being questions:” (p.1) and one of them is the famous saying, “you have the right to remain silent,” which means that if you do not want to say anything you have every right not to tell the officer anything.

In recent times there has been a major debate over whether law enforcement should be able to use jailhouse informants. The controversy sparked after the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department’s use of jailhouse informants was called into question. Many people feel that the use of informants in cases against those accused of various crimes is a violation of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. In regards to this topic, The Fifth Amendment protects people from self-incrimination, meaning that those accused of a crime have a right to remain silent. The Sixth Amendment, ensures that anyone accused of a crime has the right to an attorney, if a defendant cannot afford an attorney one will be provided.

The U.S. justice system is considered the fairest of all but if confessions are inadmissible and true criminals are released then our society will progress under great peril from continued violent acts. Law enforcement officers are mandated by Miranda to advise subjects in a custodial interrogation of their rights under the Fifth Amendment and their right to a counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The policies of police departments everywhere had to be changed due to Miranda; as this decision provided a fundamental shift in the tactics being used by investigators to interrogate suspects. No longer could officers pray on the ignorance of the law or intimidation of authority in order to compel confessions. “The courts have made it very clear that the use of physical force or physical abuse or even the threat of this type of conduct on the part of police will render a confession involuntary”