Analysis of Miranda v. Arizona Case (1966)

Introduction

Miranda relates to America’s supreme court ruling on the Miranda Vs Arizona case that was ruled in 1966 declaring persons under police custody to be informed of the 5th and 6th amendments before interrogation (Stuart, 2013). It is considered one of the most significant supreme court cases in the history of the US which left a legacy. In this paper, an analysis of the Miranda rights will be given concerning the case study. The paper will show a statement of facts, issues presented in the case and the relevant cases.

Case Study

The case presented here involves eight police officers with a formal search warrant storming a suspected drug traffickers house and begin searching for the drug trafficker. They locate him and continue with the search while posting questions to the suspect who is forced to answer accordingly. The police inquire if there is anything they need to know and the suspect directs them to his bedroom where there are pistols. As the police continue with their search, they discover other weapons and drugs, which prompt them to ask the suspect of anything else apart from the ones found that the may need to know. The suspect without hesitation continues to direct them and asks whether it would be okay for him to call his lawyer cousin. He does not get any response regarding the question.

Fact

It is under the law for the court to grant a motion to the defence attorney of the case to suppress each of the statement made by the suspect. The reason for the grant of motion is that the police violated the suspect 's right to remain silent during arrest and that the suspect 5th Amendment was not given as required. A motion to suppress evidence would vital in this case as there is valid evidence showing a violation of the rights of the suspect and the conduct of police offending the United States Constitution. This case relates to the violation of the Miranda. The merits that support this claim are that the Miranda rules were not given to the claimant as a warning. Also, an interrogation occurred, and the suspect made a response in response to the questioning. There is also evidence that the claimant was in police custody as there was coercive arrest on the suspect.

When the police conduct a search or arrest warrant on a suspect, the law requires the suspect to be informed of their Miranda rights which include the following; First of all the police ought to inform the suspect of their right to remain silent. The suspect should also be informed that anything they say shall be used against them in the court of law. The Miranda rights further require police to notify the suspect that they have a right to an Attorney, or that if they cannot afford an Attorney, they shall be appointed one before any questioning if they so desire. The Miranda rights are vital and applicable in this case and shall be used to determine the case

Issues

The primary issue, in this case, is the violation of the Miranda rights of the suspect. In the Miranda Vs Arizona Casse, the supreme court held that, “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” (U v Dickerson Case) This statement is similar to this case as the suspect incriminated himself under police interrogation without the provision of the Miranda rights by the police to the suspect. It is also clear that the police ignored the suspect's right for an Attorney.

When police fail to give a Miranda warning to a suspect in custody and proceed to interrogate such a suspect, any statement or confession made by the suspect will be presumed to be involuntary, thus not valid for use against the suspect in any criminal case. The police used express questions which sought to clarify volunteered statements from the suspect. Such comments are likely to incriminate the suspect. Still, the evidence gathered by the police in this case as a result of such a confession will be thrown out in the court as not valid.

Summary

The case against the drug trafficker suspect could be validated because the suspect’s Miranda rights were violated leading him to involuntary make an incriminating confession. Such disclosure cannot support a criminal accusation against the suspect, and therefore, the defence attorney should be given a mission of suppression of statements made by the suspect. When the suspect invoked his rights to consult his attorney, he was denied which further showed an invoked right to the claimant.

Conclusion

The analysis of the case study takes three steps of determination, first is the jurisdiction, then the justifiability of the Miranda rules and the proof that the Miranda Rules were violated. From the preceding discussion, the three steps have been shown. The suspect is subjected to confessional incrimination through police express question interrogation, in a coercive police arrest. The claimant is further denied the right to an attorney when he inquires of one. In the resolution, such a case cannot be used to sue the suspect against the law on the grounds of violation of the Miranda rights. Additionally, the evidence obtained in the case may not be used on the case as it is also a product of an involuntary confession.

Reference

Stuart, G. L. (2013). Miranda: The Story of America’s Right to Remain Silent. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press, Retrieved November 1, 2013