Statement of Facts
In the case, the court should grant the motion by the defense attorney since the police officers contravened the law in obtaining the evidence. The police officers stormed the apartment of a young man who had been drinking and was relaxing in the living room. The officers had no solid evidence to arrest the man at the moment. The officers searched all the rooms to ascertain whether there were any other people in the apartment. After searching through the whole room, the officers handcuffed the young man, explained their reason for conducting a search in the room and started to question him. As they questioned the young man, other police officers kept throwing things all over and disorganizing items all over the room. The officers kept going round in the house and coming up with accusations and threats of drug trafficking. The firearms could belong to someone who had visited or could as well as be planted in the young man’s house(Friedman, 2010). The officers also claim to find used drug paraphernalia and rounds of unused bullets in the house of the man. Any attempt by the man to seek any explanation as to why he was being harassed was met with more questions. After continued harassment for more than an hour and a half, the man realized the danger, feared for his life, and thus, requested if he could be allowedto call his lawyer but the officers did not grant the request. Instead, they continued with the search and harassment. At this point, the officers come back accusing the man of trafficking illegal drugs, marijuana, and cocaine to be precise. It is at this point that the police officers read the man his rights before escorting him to the station. Given the circumstances under which the evidence was obtained and consequently the arrest, the court should grant the motion by the defense attorney regarding the evidence seized.
The police officers have accused the man of being a drug trafficker and who has illegal firearms. The police officers have presented the case claiming to have found the young man in possession of eight loaded semi-automatic pistols, used drug paraphernalia, and nine boxes of unused bullets. Other items presented by the police officers include more illicit weapons, drugs, and money believed to be from the sale of drugs, cocaine, and marijuana.
Summary of Miranda v. Arizona Rulings
In the case between Miranda and the state of Arizona, the Supreme court decided that suspects under detention must be informed of their constitutional rights, which include a right to a legal representative and right to remain silent and avoid self incrimination. The case had begun in 1963 when Ernesto Miranda, a Phoenix resident, was arrested and charged with many counts among them rape, robbery, and kidnapping. The police officers who arrested Miranda began interrogating him without informing him of his constitutional rights aand in the absence of an attorney. In the interrogation, Miranda confessed to all the crimes that were being held against him and the police officers recorded the confessions.
Miranda was a school drop out and did not have a personal attorney and was not aware of his right to be assigned one by the state. During the trial, the prosecution had built their case around the confessions made by Miranda. With no counsel to advise him and the prosecution having evidence of Miranda confessing to his crimes, the jury found him guilty and sentenced him to thirty years in prison(Arenella, 1997). Realizing his rights, Miranda appealed the ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court with claims that the police officers had obtained his confession unlawfully. However, the court upheld the conviction forcing him to appeal in the Supreme Court of the United States in 1966.
The United States Supreme Court through Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that it was unlawful for the prosecution side, to present Miranda’s confession as evidence in a court-of-law unless some specified guidelines were followed. The Supreme Court established new rules, contained in the Fifth Amendment, whereby suspects should not be compelled to witness against themselves. The warnings, which are known as the Miranda warnings, include reminding in advance, the arrested suspect of their right to remain silent and that anything they say might be used during their prosecution in the courts-of-law. Police officers are also required to remind suspects of their right to call an attorney and that the state was willing to assign the suspect an attorney in case the suspect has no attorney.
Application of Miranda v. Arizona Ruling
In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the police arrested Miranda and questioned him without informing him of his rights to an attorney or the right to remain silent. Similarly, in the above case study, the police arrest a man in his house and question the individual for approximately two hours before reading him his rights as a suspect. The police ought to have informed the suspect that he has the right to remain silent throughout the investigation(Schulhofer, 1997). By informing the client, the client may not have confessed. In the case against Miranda, the U.S. Supreme court believed that a suspect under interrogation is under duress and thus, may be intimidated easily.
The police officers also failed to tell the suspect of his right to call an attorney and if he could not afford one, the court would assign him. Every person arrested under American law is allowed to contact an attorney to represent him or her during trials. In this case, the suspect learned of his right after interrogation(Rogers et al., 2013). The case is worsened by the police officers determination to disobey the law, which is seen when the suspect enquires if he could call an attorney but the police officers proceeded with interrogations without responding to the request. The court found that interrogations in police custody amount to intimidation and thus, denies the suspect some liberty and may force them to make false confessions(Leo, 2001). On the contrary, a suspect’s right to an attorney is significant in that it gives the suspect confidence and a sense of security and thus, can share the story with no fear.
The Miranda v Arizona case gave rise to two crucial laws in the American legal system. One that forbids the prosecution from introducing evidence of self-confession in a court-of-law since the interrogators might not have told the suspect that the information would be used in court. Secondly, police are supposed to inform suspects of their right to an attorney before the commencement of the interrogations. This law is meant to assist suspects who are ignorant of their rights when facing charges. Both laws appear to the given case since he confessed without knowing whether the confession would be used in court. Moreover, his rights to have an attorney were infringed by the failure of the police officers to inform him of his right to have one, and by failing to grant the suspect his wish of calling a lawyer.
Arenella, P. (1997). Miranda stories.Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 20(2), 375.
Friedman, B. (2010). The wages of stealth overruling (with particular attention to Miranda v. Arizona).Geo. LJ, 99, 1.
Leo, R. A. (2001). Questioning the Relevance of Miranda in the Twenty-First Century.Michigan Law Review, 99(5), 1000
Rogers, R., Fiduccia, C. E., Robinson, E. V., Steadham, J. A., &Drogin, E. Y. (2013). Investigating the Effects of Repeated Miranda Warnings: Do They Perform a Curative Function on Common Miranda Misconceptions? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(4), 397–410Schulhofer, S. J. (1997). Bashing Miranda is unjustified–and harmful. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 20(2), 347.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more