CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
Eclpse1
crj306week3discussion1.docxEveryone has heard or seen the “Miranda Rights” on television and/or in movies. In fact, most people could probably recite what they are without reading the actual U.S. Supreme Court case or reviewing a criminal law textbook. However, there are a number of factors at play that determine when the Miranda rights must be given to a suspect. Does an officer have to Mirandize you if he walks up on the street and says, “How are you today?” When do constitutional provisions “kick in”?
How would you explain the Miranda warnings and their significance to a friend of yours not in the criminal justice field? At a minimum, address the following questions:
What does the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution mean when it states that a person shall not “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”?
When must a police officer read an accused their “Miranda warnings”?
If a police officer violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, what happens to the criminal case against that defendant?
THIS ASSIGNMENT IS COMPLETED ABOVE; YOUR NEXT ASSIGNMENT IS TO:
Respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts.
Focus your responses on the elements of the Miranda warning, and question whether the warning is still necessary?
EACH STUDENT FEEDBACK MUST BE 200 WORDS EACH (TOTAL OF 2 STUDENTS FEEDBACKS).
ANY OUTSIDE SOURCES MUST BE PROPERLY CITED IN APA FORM… Remember; do not merely agree with your classmates without additional information. A substantive response advances the discussion in a meaningful way; merely agreeing with your classmates is not a substantive response….
First Student Response Electa Pifer
The Miranda Warnings are (1) You have the right to remain silent, (2) Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law, (3) You have the right to an attorney, and (4) If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you by the court (Wright, 2013).
Miranda warnings must be given prior to the custodial interrogation by law enforcement and are only required in the event that the three components of custodial, interrogation and law enforcement are present (Wright, 2013).
Does an officer have to Mirandize you if he walks up on the street and says, “How are you today?” I think this is a tricky question. I don’t believe that a police officer has to Mirandize a person he/she walks up to on the streets asking the general question of “How are you today?” The police officer may just be friendly and not on the prowl for gathering incriminating information from a person.
When do constitutional provisions “kick in”? If a suspect makes statements that lead to his or her arrest, the officer would be required to recite the Miranda warnings before asking any further questions (Wright, 2013). The constitutional provisions would kick in if the person asked the question voluntarily give information on a crime and the police would advise them of their rights prior to gathering more information.
How would you explain the Miranda warnings and their significance to a friend of yours not in the criminal justice field? At a minimum, address the following questions:
What does the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution mean when it states that a person shall not “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”? I would let them know what rights a person has and the key factors of what the Miranda warnings allow a person to know when their rights are explained to them.
When must a police officer read an accused their “Miranda warnings”? A police officer must read an accused their Miranda warnings upon detention for a crime or interrogation.
If a police officer violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, what happens to the criminal case against that defendant? If a police officer violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights the case could be thrown out for failing to advise a person of their rights. The information would not be admissible in court due to the violation of the Fifth Amendment rights of self-incrimination.
Wright, R. (2013). Introduction to criminal law and procedure. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Second Response from Andrew Sensel
Miranda warnings are an important part to the arrest/investigation of an individual if there will be questioning involved. There does not always need to be an arrest associated with questioning a person though. This warning allows a person to be made aware that they have the right to not speak and also the right to have an attorney present during questioning and further that any statement will most likely be used against them in court. This is very important because it can make or break a case. Police do not need to read someone their rights when simply saying hello to a person. This is just friendly interaction in the community which should be happening. Ordinary communications with citizens should not need this, but taking a citizen into custody to question them about a crime that was committed is a different story and they must be read their Miranda Rights. This is all protected by the Fifth Amendment where it states that a person shall not be made a witness against his or herself meaning that they cannot be forced into incriminating themselves and may remain silent if they wish which is where reading Miranda warnings come from. This was the key decision in Miranda v. Arizona where a confession was signed stating the defendant had been made aware of his rights to an attorney and no rights were ever given according to the detectives (Wright, 2013). Failure to follow these simple rules can make any statement inadmissible in court and could very well lead to charges being dropped. This happened recently in MD; like I said where a case was dropped after the arresting agency reached a confession and all the details about the crime. The case was dropped because neither of the suspects were offered an attorney and were questioned after they had asked for an attorney present. Eventually all the correct motions were filed and most of the evidence was dismissed which led to the charges being dropped. The case never made it to trial and not only did the victim's family not receive any closure, the person who admitted the act went free and several people lost their jobs.
Reference:
