After the historic case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, the Supreme Court declared the necessity of anyone in custody being told what was named the Miranda rights. The court declared that before being questioned and probably as the person is being taken into police custody, he/she has to be read for the Fifth Amendment right. The right asks the person in custody not to make statements that may incriminate him/her.
The Miranda rights have four basic parts. They are outlined below:
The person under custody has the right to remain silent.
Anything that the person says while in custody can be used against him/her in a court of law.
One has the right to be represented by an attorney.
If one cannot afford an attorney, the state can appoint one for them.
The law states that a police officer has to read the Miranda rights to the person being placed under custody during arrest or any time before questioning (Rodger, Shuman, & Drogin, 2008) . While most people believe that they can get away without being punished if the Miranda rights are not read to them before questioning, this is not the case. However, if a police officer fails to read the rights, the prosecutor will have a difficult time using anything that the detainee says as evidence in court. The rights do not have to be read to a person that is not under custody (Rodgers, 2011) . This means that anything that a person not under custody says can be used as evidence in a law court. In a nutshell, the law requires that an officer must read the rights to a person before questioning.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Rogers, R., Shuman, D. W., & Drogin, E. Y. (2008). Miranda Rights.. and Wrong-Myths, Methods, and Model Solutions. Crim. Just. , 23 , 4.
Rogers, R. (2011). Getting it wrong about Miranda rights: False beliefs, impaired reasoning, and professional neglect. American Psychologist , 66 (8), 728.
