0
How has Miranda vs Arizona changed the arrest and interrogation process?
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
The Miranda warning became part of the American legal system in 1966. It requires police and law enforcement officials to read criminal suspects their legal rights, including the right to remain silent if they choose to do so.
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoThe Miranda rights were a positive change in law enforcement because it set a precedent. Suspects who wanted to speak could elect to do so, and the police could use that information in court. Suspects who did not know what to say or felt intimidated could remain silent without fear.
Wiki User
∙ 10y agoit set forth and clarified a suspect's Fifth Amendment Rights to remain silent and to have access to a lawyer before answering questions.
Arresting Officer don't have to issue the Miranda warning when making an arrest for instance a crime committed in the presence of an Officer or a third party saying that person committed a crime the rule of thumb is Custody and asking questions about a crime = Miranda warning, common question like address, name, age ext. no Miranda, spontaneous utterance like I didn't mean to hurt or kill that person could be used in court Judge would have to decide but after a spontaneous utterance like above Miranda must be giving.
Wiki User
∙ 14y agoIt did not change law enforcement. It changed the procedures at the time of arrest.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Which civil rights issue was involved with Miranda v Arizona?
Due process
How did Miranda v Arizona effect the Fourteenth Amendment?
Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) didn't affect the Fourteenth Amendment; the Fourteenth Amendment allowed the US Supreme Court's decision to be applied to the states via the Due Process Clause.
What was the original case of Arizona v Miranda?
There were two trials, both titled State of Arizona v. Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape at his first trial and again on retrial.In the appeal of the first trial (Miranda v. Arizona,(1966)), the US Supreme Court held that Miranda's constitutional rights had been violated, resulting in the first conviction being vacated and the case being remanded for retrial with Miranda's confession excluded as evidence.Miranda was subsequently convicted at his second trial. The decision was affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court denied certiorari for his second petition, making the Arizona Supreme Court decision final.
When might an interview turn into an interrogation?
Although there is no "legally defined" difference between the two words, and it is purely a matter of semantics, you could say that it occurs at the point at which the person being "interviewed" is advised of their "Miranda Rights." After that point it becomes an 'interrogation.' An interrogation, in criminal law, is the process of questions asked by police to a person arrested or suspected to seek answers to a crime. Such person is entitled to be informed of his rights, including right to have counsel present, and the consequences of his answers. If the police fail or neglect to give these warnings, the questions and answers are not admissible in evidence a the trial or hearing of the arrested person
What were the rights guaranteed to the Miranda v.Arizona?
The Miranda case held that you have to be read your rights when being arrested. "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 cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you. Do you understand those rights as I have read them to you?" This is a reading of what is now referred to as your "Miranda Rights". The names comes from the Miranda case. The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause incorporates the Fifth Amendment to the states. Both Amendments mention Due Process, but the Fifth Amendment is the one referred to in criminal cases.
Which major areas of police activity are infused with due process requirements?
search and seizure, arrest, and interrogation
Interrogation an art or science?
Its both. Just like photography. The process is a science but the out come is art. How you get your final product.
How did Miranda v Arizona change the standard for admissibility of confessions and admissions?
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)Miranda applied the "exclusionary rule" to any statements or confessions the defendant made in response to police interrogation if the defendant hadn't been informed of relevant due process rights beforehand. Under the exclusionary rule, illegally obtained evidence may not be used to convict a defendant in court.According to the US Supreme Court, a person in police custody must be told he (or she) has the right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment). The person must also be advised of the right to have an attorney present before and during questioning, and to receive court-appointed legal counsel if he (she) can't afford to hire an attorney (Sixth Amendment).The decision in Miranda wisely assumes ignorance of constitutional rights. If the person in custody is not advised of these rights, and doesn't invoke the rights, any exculpatory or inculpatory statements are considered unconstitutionally obtained evidence, and are inadmissible in court.The Miranda ruling has been revised somewhat by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. On June 1, 2010, the Roberts' Court released the opinion for Berghuis v. Thompkins,08-1470 (2010), which held a defendant must invoke his right to remain silent (by stating he wants to remain silent), rather than waive it (by explicitly agreeing to answer questions before interrogation).
The Supreme court's decision in Miranda v Arizona was based mainly on?
the incorporation of due process rights in the Bill of Rights so as to make them apply to the states
From which amendment do the Miranda rights come?
The 5th and 6th amendments both deal with the Miranda rights. The 5th amendment, protection from self-incrimination, is the right to remain silent. The 6th amendment addresses the right to an attorney.
What aspect of the fifth amendment does the Miranda decision address?
Yes. Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) was primarily a Fifth Amendment case requiring police to inform anyone in their custody of their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent (under the self-incrimination clause), but also invoked the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney before being interrogated and during questioning, unless the detainee waives that right.The decision in Miranda was applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Who brought a case to the Supreme Court based on his arrest?
There could be several answers to this question because the Warren Court heard quite a few cases involving suspects' or defendants' rights at different phases of the pre-arrest and arrest process. My hunch is you may be asking about Ernesto Miranda, petitioner of Miranda v. Arizona, (1966), who confessed to police without knowing his constitutional rights protecting against self incrimination and the availability of counsel. The decision in this case resulted in law enforcement personnel being required to read a person his or her rights before being detained. These are known as Miranda Rights.Case Citation:Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
