Notes: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

Overview

• Case: Miranda v. Arizona
• Decision: Officers must inform suspects of rights: remain silent, anything said can be used as evidence, right to attorney
• Other Cases Cited: United States v. Campos-Ayala
• Court: Supreme Court of Arizona
• Dates: Argued February 28 - March 1, 1966; Decided June 13, 1966

Key Points

Rights of Suspects

• Fifth Amendment: Protection against self-incrimination
• Rights to be informed:
  • Right to remain silent
  • Anything said may be used in court
  • Right to an attorney, either appointed or retained
  • Right to cease interrogation upon request

Procedural Safeguards

• Warnings Required: Must inform suspects clearly of rights before any interrogation
• Attorney Requirement: If requested, must be present before questioning continues
• Waiver of Rights:
  • Must be knowingly and intelligently made
  • Silence is not a waiver
  • Interrogation must stop if suspect chooses silence or requests an attorney

Importance

• Influence on Law Enforcement: Sets guidelines for policing and interrogations
• Impact on Confessions: Affects admissibility in court
• Adoption and Compliance: FBI and other jurisdictions use similar safeguards

Historical Context

• Historical Development: Based on long-standing privilege against self-incrimination
• Precedent: Builds on Escobedo v. Illinois and other cases

Legal Principles

• Voluntariness: Confessions must be voluntary, not coerced
• Interrogation Environment: Must not be inherently intimidating
• Role of Attorney: Critical in ensuring suspect's rights and voluntariness of statements

Dissents and Opinions

• Dissenting Opinions: Concerns about the impact on law enforcement
• Justice Views: Multiple justices express different points regarding the balance of rights and crime control

Implications

• Law Enforcement Practices: Need for revised training and procedures
• Legal System: Greater focus on protecting rights of individuals under interrogation

International Comparison

• Other Jurisdictions: U.K., India, and others with different, sometimes stricter rules

Conclusion

• Outcome: The requirement for procedural safeguards during interrogations to protect constitutional rights.