Reference no: EM133773853
Kevin
The landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), clarified and expanded upon the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964). Miranda requires that suspects in custody be advised of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and their Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel before they are interrogated while in custody. The Court recognized the "inherently coercive" 1 nature of custodial interrogations, which increases the likelihood of self-incrimination. To that end, the Court determined that a confession is not admissible in court unless a suspect is advised of their rights and waives them.
In contrast, individuals who consent to a search are not deemed to be in custody, and their consent must be given voluntarily. There can be no coercion on the part of the law enforcement officer.2 In fact, the Court has noted that consent and coercion are mutually exclusive.3 If an officer does coerce an individual to give in to a search, that individual's right against "unreasonable searches and seizures" has been violated because they can no longer feel "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" as required by the Fourth Amendment.4 Because an individual has the autonomy to refuse or terminate voluntary consent, there is no obligation to advise them of their rights prior to the search.
The difference between a custodial interrogation and voluntary consent is one of context. If the individual feels free to leave, their consent is voluntary under the "reasonable person" test; otherwise, they have been seized.5 Custodial interrogations are not voluntary and the individual is not free to leave; therefore, they must be advised of their rights to maintain and preserve their Fifth Amendment protections.
Mark-
Miranda rights, we all know the sayings from the TV shows. "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can you against you in a court of law, etc". Everyone understands that everyone has rights, and it is the law to be read your rights. Police are required to say these "Miranda rights because it is one of our Amendments in the Constitution. The Laws that govern our nation of the United States of America. One of the most influential supreme court cases that dealt with criminal justice was Miranda vs. Arizona (1966). The US Supreme court upheld a 5-4 decision for Miranda at the end of the case. The Supreme court ruled that if an individual is questioned or arrested in any case, they must be told their rights. This is why when you are questioned or arrested by the police they must read the suspect their Miranda rights. In the cases that people give consent for searches, they are willing to "waive" their rights, and the police do not need to give them the Miranda rights. The difference is, one person is saying it is okay to search whatever they are looking for, they basically have nothing to hide. the second person is being arrested or questioned because they are suspected of doing something wrong and they have a right to stay silent until they have an attorney present to help them through the process.
The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Warren. He said that the procedures in arresting someone need to be in accordance with the Fifth Amendment when a person is being questioned by police. "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that "the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel." These rights, according to the Court, were enshrined within the Constitution to protect against the overzealous enforcement of police authority, (Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 2024).
What it boils down to this week is, you either give consent to the police officer or you do not. If they start questioning you or bring you to the station to ask you questions, you must be read your Miranda Rights. If you are not a suspect and you are giving the police consent to search or question you for other purposes that you are not a suspect, you do not need to be read your rights.