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 warning is known as a Miranda warning. Miranda had been convicted of kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation. After the Supreme Court decision invalidated Miranda's initial conviction, the state of Arizona tried him again.
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 ...
(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:
The warning Chief Justice Earl Warren referred to is now called the Miranda warning, and it is customarily delivered by the police to an individual before questioning. Miranda has been clarified by several further Supreme Court rulings. For the warning to be necessary, the questioning must be conducted under "custodial" circumstances.
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 ]
Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case that held a subsequent Miranda warning is not sufficient to cure the taint of an unlawful arrest, when the unlawful arrest led to a coerced confession.