Miranda v Arizona
By Owen Drugan Jr. and Michael Hartman
Case Briefing
Miranda v Arizona questioned the constitutionality of criminal procedures while in custody of law enforcement. Ernesto Miranda was taken into custody from his home and brought in for questioning. When taken into the interrogation room, Ernesto never denied answering any questions asked of him. He also was not aware that he could have a lawyer present during the session. Law enforcement never read his his rights, and used his lack of knowledge of the legal system against him.
The Decision
The decision from the supreme court ruled in favor of Ernesto Miranda. Their concurring opinion was that citizens could not be taken into police custody and ?or questioned without the knowledge of their given rights at the time. The supreme court ruled that as interrogation is more psychological than physical, the accused must be aware of their rights during the time. They also set an institution that all people arrested must have the knowledge of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel.
The Impact on America
This case has widely impacted American Police. It has single-handedly coined the renowned phrase, "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you..." This not only affects the accused, as every person is now made aware of their rights at the time, but it also affects police officers completing their duties. We are now responsible in letting each person know these very important rights, and if they do not, consequences such as mistrials can lead to breaking down entire cases. That is why your "Miranda Rights" are paramount in today's society.
The Miranda Rights
"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 one, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"