Who disagree in Miranda vs Arizona case?

Answer 1

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) was the landmark US Supreme Court case that held a person in police custody, who is no longer free to leave, must be advised of his (or her) constitutional right not to incriminate himself and to consult with attorney before and during questioning. If the person is not apprised of his rights, nothing he says can be used against him in court.

The US Supreme Court vote was close, at 5-4, with the more liberal members of the Court ruling in favor of the defendant, and the more conservative members arguing to uphold stricter law enforcement standards. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion of the Court.

Majority

Chief Justice Earl Warren

Justice Hugo Black

Justice William O. Douglas

Justice William Brennan, Jr.

Justice Abe Fortas

Concurring in Part/Dissenting in Part

Justice Tom C. Clark

Dissenting

Justice John Marshall Harlan II, joined by Justice Potter Stewart

Justice Byron White, joined by Justices Potter Stewart and John Marshall Harlan II

Answer 2

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

There were actually three dissenting opinions, written by Justices Clark, Harlan, and White. Justice Stewart joined both Justices Harlan and White, and Justices Harlan and White joined each other's opinions.

Answer 3

There were two clear dissents and one partial dissent. The two clear dissents were based on the dissenting Justice's opinions that the decision was not supported by the Constitution in that no such "right" was ever called for or mentioned, either explicitly, or implicitly, in the Constitution. The partial dissent was based on procedural grounds in that the "right to counsel" already existed in the 6th Amendment.

For more information see Related Links and Related Questions, below.

Answer 4

In Miranda, the US Supreme Court decided that people in police custody must be informed of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment Constitutional rights before questioning, or the confession/evidence would be inadmissible in court.

Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) dealt with the need for individuals in police custody to understand their constitutional rights before being questioned by police. The specific protections addressed are the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself, and the Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel. The "fundamentals of fairness" standard, derived from the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, demands that the accused be aware of his (or her) options in dealing with police so he can make informed decisions and not unwittingly act against his best interest.

The Court's decision permanently changed law enforcement procedures, such that people taken into police custody must be formally advised of their rights before questioning. Each state is free to determine the exact wording of their "Miranda Warning," provided the elements stipulated in the Supreme Court decision are clearly included.

Example

"You have 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 speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."

Other versions are also used.

Case Citation:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

Answer 5

The supreme court ruled in favor of Miranda (they actually dismissed his case (he was being tried for rape and domestic assualt) which who lets a guy like that go regardless). It is now required by all LEO's around the nation when two factors are present:

1) Detention (The subject has to feel like the ability to freely leave is not present)

2) Questioning relating directly to the crime. (Did you steal that, Did you kill him/her)

It varies in states but in MN, the MN supreme court ruled in (Scales Vs. MN), Requires that you record it.