0
No case protects that right. The right is protected and codified by the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, and often in the individual state constitutions.
Added: You are probably referring to the US Supreme Court case, Miranda V. Arizona, which gave rise to the Supreme Court decision to protect the arrestees rights, more commonly known as the Miranda Decision.
What else can I help you with?
What change to policing resulted from Miranda v Arizona?
police must inform suspects that may remain silent and have a lawyer present during questioning
When you use the constitution to remain silent?
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual from self-incrimination, allowing them to remain silent during police questioning. This right ensures that individuals cannot be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal proceeding. By invoking this right, a person can protect themselves from potentially providing evidence that could be used against them in court.
What is the significance of the "Miranda" law in protecting individuals' rights during police interrogations?
The Miranda law requires police to inform individuals of their rights before questioning them, such as the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. This helps protect individuals from self-incrimination and ensures fair treatment during police interrogations.
What is impeding an investigation?
One must actively provide false information to the police during investigative questioning. Merely choosing to remain silent doesn't rise to the level of a violation of impeding.
How did Escobedo vs Illinois affect police work?
because it made it to where peolple have the rite to remain silince in questioning.
What was the effect of the Supreme Court decision described in this headline?
police were required to inform suspects of their right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during questioning the decision established the clear and present danger test judging free speech
Does the defendant have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police?
Yes, the defendant has the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police, particularly after being taken into custody. This right is part of the Miranda rights, which inform individuals of their right to remain silent and to have legal counsel present during questioning. If they request an attorney, police must cease questioning until the attorney is present. This right is fundamental to ensuring fair legal representation and protecting against self-incrimination.
What amendment is the basis for the Miranda v. Arizona ruling?
The basis for the Miranda v. Arizona ruling is the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. In the 1966 decision, the Supreme Court held that individuals taken into police custody must be informed of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. This ruling established the "Miranda rights," ensuring that suspects are aware of their constitutional protections when facing interrogation.
What is the purpose of the Miranda rule?
The Supreme Court recently confirmed that Miranda warnings are constitutionally required because of a 1966 case called Miranda v. Arizona. When a person is in custody, some version of the Miranda rights, such as the following, is read to the individual before questioning: "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be obtained for you before police questioning." The Miranda rule was developed to protect the individual's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Many people feel obligated to respond to police questioning. The Miranda warning ensures that people in custody realize they do not have to talk to the police and that they have the right to the presence of an attorney. If the Miranda warning is not given before questioning, or if police continue to question a suspect after he or she indicates in any manner a desire to consult with an attorney before speaking, statements by the suspect generally are inadmissible. However, it may be difficult for your attorney to suppress your statement or confession in court. The best rule is to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney. Insist on it.Charles Miranda was a person who was arrested by police and not given any formal warnings as to what the consequences could be if he makes a statement to the police, especially one that incriminates himself. The two basic Miranda warnings are that you have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney being present when making a statement. It further states that any time during the questioning you can remain silent and not answer any questions, the police cannot make any threats, coercion, or promises in order to induce you to make a statement: the statement must be of your own free will. It also states that you have the right to a court appointed attorney if you cannot afford one. Finally, it states that any statement you do make to the police can be used against you in trial.
What are the important police laws that individuals should be aware of?
Individuals should be aware of important police laws such as the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees the right to remain silent and protection against self-incrimination. Additionally, understanding laws related to use of force by police officers and the rights of individuals during interactions with law enforcement is crucial.
How police officers obtain confessions and conduct lineups is addressed in which Constitutional Amendment?
The Bill of Rights is intended to unequivocally protect civil rights and to restrain the state (and its instruments such as the police). Amendment IV protects those in lineups and interrogations against arbitrary detention, search and seizure without due cause, or warrant. Those detained (or not) also have the Amendment V rights to remain silent and refuse questioning. Amendment VI guarantees them the right to an attorney, and to know the charges placed against them. Amendment VIII protects the detained from excess bail and torture, which can and have been used to illicit false confessions.
Can a police officer question a 17 year old without a parent present in NY?
In New York, a police officer can question a 17-year-old without a parent present, as 17 is the age of criminal responsibility in the state. However, the minor has the right to have a parent or guardian present during questioning if they choose. It's important for the minor to understand their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel. Parents are typically encouraged to be involved, but their presence is not legally required for the questioning to occur.
