NEED IN 12 HOURS or LESS

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a very powerful amendment. Cases have been heard at the Supreme Court level regarding violations by police, law enforcement, and other judicial organizations to individuals. In the Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that any individual taken into custody for interrogation must be read his or her Miranda rights. The Miranda rights that must be read by law enforcement state: "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 an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you," ("What Are Your Miranda Rights," n.d.).
 

Choose a recent case (from 1990 to the present) from the Fifth Amendment in regard to the Miranda rights, and explain how the case was dismissed/rejected because of law enforcement officials or others failed to read the suspect his or her Miranda rights. Further, provide a four- to eight-sentence synopsis of the case, and explain why it has historical precedence, if any. Finally, identify whether you believe this case had a positive or negative impact on society.
 

Note: Please be sure to choose a different case than one of your classmates. There are a multitude of cases that directly correlate with this amendment.

ANSWER AND THEN REPLY TO MY CLASSMATE’S RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS AND EXPLAIN WHY YOU AGREE? (A MINIMUM OF 250 WORDS or MORE EACH QUESTION)

                                           CLASSMATE’S POST

People v. Peevy, 17 Cal. 4th 1184 - Cal: Supreme Court 1998
In the case of People v. Peevy, the defendant was arrested by a police officer after allegedly trying to rob from his manager at KFC. At the point of arrest the deputy read to him his rights and took him to the office of a detective who reminded him of his Miranda rights. The defendant said that he would rather have an attorney present during that process. However, none was provided, and the detective continued to talk to the defendant about the crime then he is later given to another officer to escort him into custody. At the vehicle, again, the defendant began to talk but was given his Miranda warnings for the third time, and this time he waived the rights because he wanted to talk.
 The court found that the defendant had been mishandled and that the police continued to interrogate him deliberately even after the Miranda warnings. The circumstances under which the detective questioned the defendant did not make the statements involuntary, as the prosecution tried to establish.
 I believe that the case had a positive impact on society because it set the precedence that the rights of arrested individuals need to be protected so that they are not placed at a disservice. It is important that a defendant is provided with counsel and not made to incriminate themselves under any circumstances. This case is important in that it preserves the constitutional rights of the citizens and is a direct comment on the way that police officers sometimes conduct interrogations without regard to the rights of the suspect.