What are “Miranda” warnings?
You have most likely seen on TV or heard in the movies the term “Miranda warnings.” So, what are they and where does the term come from?
Ernesto Miranda was a 22-year-old man in Phoenix when he was arrested for an alleged rape of an 18-year-old girl walking home from the show. He was taken to the police station where he was interrogated for hours before signing a confession. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison. He appealed his case and the Supreme Court overturned the conviction. They voted 5-4 that when a person is in police custody, he has a right to be advised of his rights before any questioning begins. Therefore, if the police do not interview or question the suspect, no Miranda warnings are required.
The police are required to tell the suspect in custody that he has the right to remain silent, that he has a right to an attorney before questioning begins and, if he can’t afford one, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him, and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him in court. These are referred to as the Miranda warnings.
A year after the Miranda decision in 1966, the Supreme Court extended the ruling to apply to juveniles. The case was In re Gault (1967).
Note: Miranda was retried, convicted and spent years in prison. When he was released, he supported himself by selling signed copies of the Miranda card carried by police officers.
Miranda redux: In 2005, four decades after Miranda, a 25 year-old photographer, named Teresa Halbach, was murdered in Wisconsin. 16 year-old, Brendan Dassey and his uncle, Steven Avery, were arrested, tried and convicted. They were both sentenced to life in prison. In August, 2016, Dassey’s conviction was overturned and sent back to the prosecutor due to numerous constitutional violations. Among them is the fact that Dassey was a learning-disabled juvenile with no criminal record. He was repeatedly questioned by the police about the murder without benefit of an attorney, and was fed facts that he eventually confessed to. Even Dassey’s first attorney allowed him to be further interrogated alone. The state of Wisconsin has ninety days to either release Dassey from prison or advise the court that they will retry him. This case was popularized through a Netflix series in 2015 titled Making A Murderer.
Photo by banspy (Flickr)
Teen Help Network
February 18, 2017 4:48 pm count( 0 )
Can law enforcement put video and audio survellence in someone’s apartment without letting them know does law enforcement need a warrant to have a judge approve this and what about ou ” RIGHT TO PRIVACY” in our own home and what about the 4th amendment is probable cause or hear say enough to take away our rights as humans is it not the known fact that we are all ” INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY?” Well if law enforcement has to figure out if someone is guilty or innocent by invading someone’s privacy to secretly observe and document even if it turns out to be nothing at all just the action of secretly invading someone’s personal life shows that the theory ” innocent till proven guilty ” is not how a person is really being treated… In fact it should just be known that its ” GUILTY TILL PROVEN INNOCENT” think about it by setting up survellence they have already got some idea that you must be guilty of something for them to go into your apartment and set up all this without the persons knowledge is saying they have the right to invade someone’s privacy who is now being observed like a science project and this is how they build a case ?? Now how long do they observe how many are employed to play private spy? Days weeks months ?? working shifts around the clock to look at every detail … How many times did the person observed pick their nose today ???? All the money being spent to hope that after all the invasion of this persons every life detail that they obviously are determined to be right that in the end they will have their guilty party and then they did their job but what if the observed person is truly innocent and in the end is law enforcement going to step down maybe even apologise for their intrusion and remove all survellence? There are so many other ways to handle a guilty person who has broken the law without going into their private home … I am sure it’s quite amusing privately watching the weird things people do when they think no one is watching if not guilty at least people are great for a laugh … I have a friend who has been dealing with this so does the observed have any rights especially knowing this is happening to my friend shoud this person get an attourney now while being privately watched ? Suggestions please
Dear Ramona: We suggest that your friend contact a local attorney for advice in this situation. He/she would know the laws where this occurred and whether what’s happened to your friend constitutes a lawful search or not. Some criminal defense lawyers provide free initial consultations. Good luck. -ATJ.info
Leave A Comment