0
This U.S. Supreme case held that a person must be informed that they have the right to an attorney upon arrest?
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoWant this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
This us supreme case held that a person must be informed that they have the right to an attorney upon arrest?
You're referring to the case of Miranda v. ArizonaHowever, there is no requirement that the information be given upon arrest.
What gaurantees that a person will be informed of there rights when placed under arrest?
The supreme court case Miranda vs Arizona.
Should taco's be poison?
The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her.
What case you we can file for the police he arrest a person without warrant?
Police do not necessarily need a warrant to arrest someone. Basically an arrest means that they have strong reason to believe that someone has broken the law. A warrant allows them to arrest the person on sight even if they are doing nothing wrong at the time. If you feel like the arrest is unjust your best option is to get an attorney.
What is a arrest warrent?
If you have been charged with a crime, and are not in custody yet, or have failed to appear in court to answer the charge, a criminal arrest warrant will be issued.
What term is defined as a person who has the responsibility to carry out the laws of the legislature or the decrees of the Supreme?
President
What rights does a person under arrest have?
The usual, the right to remain silent, the right an attorney basic human rights that sort of stuff
What do you call an informed person?
An informed person is a smart person.
Are the police and the prosecuting attorney required to question a person accused of committing a crime?
Nope. The Police and Prosecuting Attorney are not required to act on any accusation other than that contained in an arrest warrant.
If a person who was arrested for pubic intoxication was not read their Miranda rights can the charges be dropped?
The charges may be dropped, but not due to the fact that a person who was arrested for public intoxication was not read their Miranda rights. Despite what you may have heard elsewhere, there is absolutely no requirement that a person being arrested be informed of their Miranda rights. The only time the law requires that a person be informed of their Miranda rights is when they are both, under custodial arrest, and when they are being interrogated. Second, even if a person, subject to custodial arrest and being interrogated, was not informed of their Miranda rights, and the court actually believes this, then the remedy is not to drop the charges, but simply to refuse to allow the fruits of the interrogation to be entered as evidence against the person. In other words, if the court finds that a confession was obtained from the accused while they were subject to custodial arrest and while they were being interrogated without having first been informed of their Miranda rights, then that confession would be "suppressed." The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult with an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Miranda in a Nutshell?
Miranda v. Arizona was a ruling by the United States Supreme Court in 1966 that involved interrogation of people in police custody. The law regarding interrogation is not based upon a statute, but on constitutional law. The basic rule is that when a person is in custody, he must be informed of a few basic rights before being questioned. The person must be informed of the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if the person cannot afford counsel. The person must also be informed that any statement can be used against him. Until the person in custody has been informed of those rights, the police may not legally interrogate or question him. If any custodial interrogation takes place without the appropriate warnings, any resulting statement may be suppressed (meaning the prosecution cannot use that statement at trial). However, if the person is never legally in custody, if the person is not under arrest, then Miranda does not apply. Therefore, if a police officer stops someone for a broken tail light, the officer need not start in with Miranda warnings. It is generally a good idea, when questioned by police about a crime, to remember the right to remain silent, and to understand that silence is golden. Generally it is best, when asked about a crime, to deny it and then tell the police that one will speak to an attorney before making further comment. [video=]
Is it a lawful arrest when a person is arrested booked and released with no charges filed case is a DA reject?
Whether or not the DA chooses to prosecute does not impact whether or not the arrest was valid. If the officer had probable cause, the arrest was likely valid. You should address your question with a local attorney for the best possible answer.
