Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.
Arizona, which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police. This warning is known as a Miranda warning. Miranda had been convicted of kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday shielded police from the risk of paying money damages for failing to advise criminal suspects of their rights before obtaining statements ...
The form of the Miranda warning varies based on jurisdiction, but it usually follows this pattern: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
Pages in category "Miranda warning case law" The following 26 pages are in this category, out of 26 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. ...
Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (2010), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the language requirements for Miranda warnings.In the case, a suspect was advised of his right to consult with an attorney before questioning, as well as his right to consult with an attorney at any time during questioning.
In a 6-3 per curiam decision, the Court ruled that Prysock's rights were adequately conveyed and that Miranda v.Arizona did not require a "talismanic incantation." [2]In a dissent authored by Justice John P. Stevens, he argued that Sergeant Byrd left out crucial information that Prysock had the right to the services of an attorney regardless of his parent's willingness to hire one.