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.
(This is known as the Miranda warning.) If the detained person invokes these rights, all interrogation must cease, and ordinarily nothing said by the defendant in violation of this rule may be admitted against him or her at trial. [87] [88] The form of the Miranda warning varies based on jurisdiction, but it usually follows this pattern:
Ernesto Arturo Miranda was born in Mesa, Arizona, on March 9, 1941. Miranda began getting in trouble when he was in grade school. Shortly after his mother died, his father remarried. Miranda and his father did not get along very well; he kept his distance from his brothers and stepmother as well.
The Supreme Court on Thursday shielded police from being sued by suspects for failing to provide well-known Miranda warnings. Ruling in a Los Angeles case called Vega vs. Tekoh, the justices by a ...
The United States Supreme Court may soon decide whether or not police officers can face civil lawsuits if they fail The post Supreme Court set to rule on whether Miranda warnings are a ...
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 ]
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.