Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.
Phrasing of the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona: New York v. Belton: 453 U.S. 454 (1981) scope of a lawful search incident to the arrest of a passenger in an automobile includes things inside the passenger compartment Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego: 453 U.S. 490 (1981) Municipal regulation of billboards under the First Amendment
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Police must advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Constitution to remain silent, to consult with a lawyer, and to have one appointed to them if they are indigent. A police interrogation must stop if the suspect states that he or she wishes to remain silent.
Ernesto Arturo Miranda (March 9, 1941 – January 31, 1976) was an American laborer whose criminal conviction was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona , which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled to ban abortions except in the case where it would save a mother’s life, creating a path to prison for providers. Critics call the ruling, which ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) may be considered establishing a bright-line rule. The majority opinion in that case required law enforcement agents to give a criminal suspect what is now known as a Miranda warning of their "Miranda" rights when the suspect is in custody, and when the suspect is about to be interrogated.