Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Border Patrol agent reading the Miranda rights to a suspect. The concept of "Miranda rights" was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and ...
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 ...
Patrice Seibert, a suspect in a fatal arson, was arrested and taken to the police station. There, a police officer decided to interrogate her using a method he had been taught: to question the suspect, obtain a confession, then give Miranda warnings and repeat the questioning until the confession was obtained again.
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them.
Chicago-Kent Law Review. 61: 577. Becker, Jeffrey S. (2004). "A Legal War on Terrorism: Extending New York v. Quarles and the Departure from Enemy Combatant Designations". DePaul Law Review. 53: 831. Raphael, Alan (1998). "The Current Scope of the Public Safety Exception to Miranda under New York v. Quarles". New York City Law Review. 2: 63.
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990), [1] was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that undercover police agents did not need to give Miranda warnings when talking to suspects in jail. [2] Miranda warnings, named after the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v.
In a decision without a majority opinion, three justices wrote that the Miranda warnings were merely intended to prevent violations of the Constitution, and that because Patane's un-Mirandized testimony was not admitted at trial, the Constitution (specifically the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination) had not been violated.