Miranda V Arizona

      Law enforcement managers should reevaluate their existing training and policies that address the practices of their personnel conducting interviews and interrogations. Now, more important than ever, intentional violations of ... [Read More]

"Landmark Decisions" , eJournal USA: Issues of Democracy, April 2005
Just three years later the Supreme Court decided that the accused should have the right to counsel long before they get to a courtroom. Ernesto Miranda was convicted in a state court in Arizona of kidnapping and rape. His conviction was based on a confession Miranda gave to police officers after two hours of questioning, without being advised that he had the right to have an attorney present. In its ruling the Supreme Court required that police officers, when making arrests, must give what are now known as Miranda warnings—that suspects have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, that they can have a lawyer present during questioning, and that a lawyer will be provided if they cannot afford one. ... [Read More]

The Supreme Court of the United States: Highest Court in the Land, eJournal USA: Issues of Democracy, April 2005
The Bureau of International Information Programs of the U.S. Department of State publishes five electronic journals under the eJournal USA logo— Economic Perspectives, Global Issues, Issues of Democracy, Foreign Policy Agenda and Society & Values— that examine major issues facing the United States and the international community as well as U.S. society, values, thought, and institutions. Each of the five is catalogued by volume (the number of years in publication) and by number (the number of issues that appear during the year). One new journal is published monthly in English and is followed two to four weeks later by versions in French, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. Selected editions also appear in Arabic and Chinese. The opinions expressed in the journals do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government. The U.S. Department of State assumes no responsibility for the content and continued accessibility of Internet sites to which the journals l ... [Read More]

U.S. v. Seay
     Appellant’sconfession did not derive fromeither the initial interview by Detective Graham, or the pretextual phone calls which followed.   In fact, nostatements from Appellant’s first or second questioning were admittedintoevidence at trial.   Rather, Appellantconfessed to Chafin’s murder on a thirdoccasion,after having voluntarily driven to the CID office and met with his wife.   Immediately prior to Appellant’s confessionon this occasion, Mrs. Seay was removedfrom the roomand a CID agent administered new rights warnings, as well as a“cleansingwarning” advising Appellant that the CID would not use againstAppellantanything Appellant had previously said.   After receiving these warnings, Appellant waived his rights, andonlythen gave his voluntary confession.     ... [Read More]

FBI Publications - Law Enforcement Bulletin - March 1997 issue - Beyond Miranda
Endnotes 1384 U.S. 436 (1966).2Arizona v. Miranda, 98 Ariz. 11,__, 401 P.2d 716, 717-18 (1965). 3Arizona v. Miranda, 98 Ariz. 18,__, 401 P.2d 721, 722-23 (1965).4Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 492 (1966).5Id. at 471.6The government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the suspectmade a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the rights contained in the Mirandawarnings prior to being subjected to custodial interrogation. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157,168 (1986).7 Miranda, 384 U.S. at 457.8California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (per curiam); Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324(1969). The custody test is an objective test that looks to whether a reasonable person in thesuspect's shoes would feel free to leave. The unexpressed subjective intent of a police officer toarrest a suspect is irrelevant to the issue of whether a suspect is in custody under Miranda.Stansbury v. California, _ U.S._, 114 S. Ct. 1526, 1529-30 (1994) (per curiam).9Rhode Islan ... [Read More]

FBI Publications- Law Enforcement Library - August 1997 issue - Intentional Violations of Miranda: A Strategy for Liability
  Endnotes1 384 U.S. 436 (1966).2 The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides in pertinent part that "no person...shallbe compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...."3 See, e.g., Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975) (interpreting the invocation of the right tosilence); Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (interpreting the invocation of the right tocounsel); Minnick v. Mississippi, 111 S. Ct. 486 (1990) (further interpreting the invocation of theright to counsel); Davis v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 2350 (1994) (determining the claritynecessary for an invocation of the right to counsel).4 Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479 (evidence obtained in violation of Miranda is generallyinadmissible).5 See Mahan v. Plymouth County House of Corrections, 64 F.3d 14 (1st. Cir. 1995) "Every courtof appeals which has spoken to this matter in similar circumstances has held that no Section 1983claim lay." Id. at 17.6 See Cooper v. Dupnik, 963 F.2d 12 ... [Read More]

No. 99-5525: Dickerson v. United States - Merits
23 A lively debate in the law reviews has considered whether the socialscientific evidence demonstrates that Miranda has had any effect on therates at which criminals are prosecuted and convicted. In our view, thesocial scientific evidence is at best inconclusive and certainly insufficienton which to base a decision to overrule an important constitutional precedent.Compare Paul G. Cassel & Richard Fowles, Handcuffing the Cops? A Thirty-YearPerspective on Miranda's Harmful Effects on Law Enforcement, 50 Stan. L.Rev. 1055 (1998), with Stephen J. Schulhofer, Miranda's Practical Effect:Substantial Benefits and Vanishingly Small Social Costs, 90 Nw. U.L. Rev.500 (1996), and John J. Donahue III, Did Miranda Diminish Police Effectiveness?,50 Stan. L. Rev. 1147 (1998). See also Richard A. Leo & Welsh S. White,Adapting to Miranda: Modern Interrogators' Strategies for Dealing with theObstacles Posed by Miranda, 84 Minn. L. Rev. 397 (1999). The argument thatMiranda should be superseded by ... [Read More]

Miranda Rights (Reason): American Treasures of the Library of Congress
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was one of Chief Justice Earl Warren's (1891-1974) best-known opinions. Warren's handwritten notes contain his initial considerations about the decision that required police to warn an arrested suspect that the government could use any information provided as evidence and that the suspect had a right to remain silent and the right to counsel. Warren sent his notes to Justice William E. Brennan, Jr., for comment. Brennan's response advocated more flexibility and a far greater role for Congress and the States. Warren incorporated many important elements suggested by Brennan before he circulated the opinion to the other justices. ... [Read More]