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.
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.
mens rea and ignorance of the law: One, Inc. v. Olesen: 355 U.S. 371 (1958) pro-homosexual writings and the Comstock laws: Perez v. Brownell: 356 U.S. 44 (1958) revocation of citizenship for voting in a foreign election Trop v. Dulles: Cruel and unusual punishment: 356 U.S. 86 (1958) Eighth Amendment, loss of citizenship Sherman v. United ...
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 ]
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.
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), [1] upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Dickerson is regarded as a significant example of a rare departure by the Court from the principle of party presentation. [2]
In a 6-3 per curiam decision, the Court ruled that Prysock's rights were adequately conveyed and that Miranda v.Arizona did not require a "talismanic incantation." [2]In a dissent authored by Justice John P. Stevens, he argued that Sergeant Byrd left out crucial information that Prysock had the right to the services of an attorney regardless of his parent's willingness to hire one.
Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule (from Chimel v.California), is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence.