Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials.
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.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
Tekoh was charged with sexually assaulting a hospital patient after Vega obtained a written confession from him without first informing the suspect of his rights through so-called Miranda warnings.
The ruling does not impact the exclusion of evidence obtained without the Miranda warning for a criminal trial. “Because a violation of Miranda is not itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment ...
Supreme Court justices sound prepared to rule that police don't violate the constitutional rights of a suspect by failing to give Miranda warnings.
A Miranda warning is an explanation of a suspect's rights that must be given by law enforcement before interrogation. It stems from the 1966 Miranda v.Arizona case, and is based primarily on the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
In United States law, an example is the case of Miranda v. Arizona , which adopted a prophylactic rule (" Miranda warnings ") to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule , which restricts admissibility of evidence in court, is also sometimes considered to be a prophylactic rule. [ 2 ]