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.
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 ...
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.
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.
Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner: 350 U.S. 46 (1955) Hedging futures gains are ordinary if on raw materials United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp. 350 U.S. 332 (1956) contracts under the Natural Gas Act of 1938: Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. 350 U.S. 348 (1956) contracts under the Federal Power Act ...
Per Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966), [1] "custodial interrogation [refers to] questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." The United States Supreme Court has clarified that a person is being subjected to a ...
Given the inherent differences between juveniles and adults and the differences between an adjudication of delinquency and a criminal conviction, basic fairness dictates that there should be an ...
The famous case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) summed up Warren's philosophy. [33] Everyone, even one accused of crimes, still enjoyed constitutionally protected rights, and the police had to respect those rights and issue a specific warning when making an arrest. Warren did not believe in coddling criminals; thus in Terry v.