Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Per Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966), [1] "custodial interrogation [refers to] questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." The United States Supreme Court has clarified that a person is being subjected to a ...
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.
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.
The Miranda rule prohibits the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation unless the police properly advise the defendant of his Fifth Amendment rights and the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waives those rights and agrees to talk to the police.
Law enforcement must read a person his or her Miranda rights — the right against self-incrimination and to an attorney — if that person is in custody and being asked incriminating questions ...
Ernesto Arturo Miranda was born in Mesa, Arizona, on March 9, 1941. Miranda began getting in trouble when he was in grade school. Shortly after his mother died, his father remarried. Miranda and his father did not get along very well; he kept his distance from his brothers and stepmother as well.
Custodial police interrogation by its very nature "isolates and pressures the individual" so that he might eventually be worn down and confess to crimes he did not commit in order to end the ordeal. In Miranda, the Court had adopted the now-famous four warnings to protect against this particular evil. Congress, in response, enacted § 3501.
A number of states collect some form of death data from all their jails. In others, the reporting process is far from comprehensive. Some, like Texas, collect information from counties but not from municipalities. Others, like Louisiana, only track deaths of inmates in state custody — a tiny fraction of the jail population.