0
What US supreme court cases didn't involve police interrogation of suspect?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Tens of thousands of them. Please be more specific.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How do the police use custodial interrogation?
The term "custodial interrogation" implies that the police are conducting an investigatory interview and that the subject who they are interviewing, is probably their suspect, and is not free to leave.
What are the 2 components needed to have the Miranda warning take effect?
The two components needed for the Miranda warning to take effect are custodial interrogation and the individual being in police custody. Custodial interrogation refers to questioning that occurs when a person is in police custody and the freedom of movement is restricted. The Miranda warning must be given to the individual before any interrogation takes place while they are in police custody.
What US amendment places limitations on police interrogation procedure?
the amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limitations on police interrogation procedures
Is it legal for police to use a taser during an interrogation?
The police most certainly cannot use a taser to coerce information from a suspect during an interrogation, neither by threat nor actual torture.But for example if a suspect became uncontrollably violent in the interrogation room, putting officers or legal counsel in danger, he could indeed be tasered and restrained legally.
Does a police officer have to mirandize someone when they are in possession of a federal drug?
No. A Miranda rights warning is only necessary prior to a custodial interrogation. If the officer is not questioning the suspect then no warning is necessary.
Can you be photographed by the police if you were not read your rights?
Yes. A Miranda warning is only necessary before a custodial interrogation. A photograph is not an interrogation.
What is Miranda doctrine?
The Miranda doctrine (and "Miranda warning") originate from Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. The US Supreme Court overturned Ernesto Miranda's conviction for rape and kidnapping based on its ruling that a suspect must be informed of his right to remain silent and right to have an attorney present before any statements he makes in police interrogation can be admissible in court. Because of this ruling, the police throughout the US now administer the "Miranda warning' ("you have the right to remain silent", etc.) immediately upon arresting a suspect to ensure he or she is aware of these rights.
How do you use the word linked in a sentence?
The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.
What is the history of the Miranda doctrine?
Ernesto Arturo Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping with much of the evidence coming from statements he made to police when arrested. In 1966, the Supreme Court decided that this evidence was inadmissible because he was unaware of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled that once a suspect waives these rights and interrogation begins, the questioning may continue until he specifically invokes the 5th or 6th Amendment.
In Schmerber v. California the Supreme Court when police ordered a doctor to draw blood from a suspect charged with drunken driving.?
had no objection (grad point) ;)
Which supreme court case police officers are not allowed to randomly stop citiziens for questioning when they don't suspect them of breaking the law?
Brown v. Texas
In Schmerber v. California the Supreme Court when police ordered a doctor to draw blood from a suspect charged with drunken driving?
In Schmerber v. California, the Supreme Court held that the warrantless blood test was allowed due to the exigent circumstances of alcohol metabolizing in the blood. The court balanced the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights against the need for accurate blood alcohol evidence in DUI cases.
