Police & Emergency Articles

How The Police Protect Your 5th Amendment Rights

The situation in which a Miranda warning is necessary is in times of arrest or when the suspect is in custodial situations. This means that the suspect does not have a free right to leave if they so choose too but they are not yet under arrest for anything. Miranda Rights are standard before any questioning is done of a suspect about the crime. If anything is said by the suspect to admit guilt in a crime and no Miranda Rights were given and the suspect waived those rights in a voluntary way, the confession or comment is usually not admissible or usable in court. Questions about your address, birth date, and name can be asked without a Miranda Warning being given.
Miranda Warnings were authorized to be a mandatory reading as they are now because of the court case of Miranda versus Arizona. This case was ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 to help protect the 5th Amendment rights of all individuals including suspects and to ensure self incrimination was not coerced out of that suspect. The specific words of the Miranda Warning were not set down by the Supreme Court but were given as a general guideline to follow. Basically, the Miranda must state that the rights of the suspect are; to remain silent, what they choose to say without a lawyer present can be used in court to find them guilty, to have a lawyer with them when questioned and to represent them, and that lawyer can be provided with no cost to the suspect if they can not pay for it. Miranda warnings are not designed to be read or spoken in any order as long as the rights are given and understood. Miranda must be given in such a way as to be understood and it is essential to ask if the suspect understands the rights given to him. A silent suspect is not a waiver of the rights however, if a clear answer is not given, it might present problems later in court.

The case involving Miranda versus Arizona was against a man named Ernesto Miranda. He was being accused of rape and kidnapping. While he was being questioned by the police, he confessed tot he charges. Unfortunately, there was no lawyer present and his rights under Miranda were not given to him before the confession was given. Because of the confession only and no other evidence to support the guilt of Ernesto Miranda, he was found guilty of the charges. Three years after the conviction, the Supreme Court decided that Ernesto Miranda was being frightened by the one investigating him and therefore gave the confession not of his own voluntary choice. Because of this, Ernesto Miranda was released only to later be retried and this time witnesses and evidence was used to convict him and caused him to have to serve eleven years in prison. One a weird twist of fate, the man that was to kill Ernesto Miranda in prison was given the Miranda rights and he chose to remain silent.
The television police shows have given all of us a view of the Miranda warning in a way that we have grown to expect this reading to occur in every arrest situation. This has become the normal course of things tot he point that most people can recite their Miranda Warnings from memory. Miranda is necessary only when the police are going to interrogate a suspect and keep them detained at the local station or in the police car after detention. Suspects can be arrested and not be given the Miranda. If interrogation is necessary after that arrest, this is the time for Miranda to be used. It is important for citizens to know those rights and when they are to be given that way, their Fifth Amendment Rights are protected.