-
Traffic stops typically occur as a result of suspected moving violations committed by the driver of the vehicle. Passengers cannot be held responsible for the driver's conduct and are generally free to leave, unless police become suspicious of them during the course of the stop...
-
Be aware that private security personnel outnumber police officers in the United States by three to one. As a result, you may be more likely to be confronted by a security guard than by a police officer. You must also be aware of the following places where security personnel (governmental or otherwise) are permitted to search you without a warrant...
-
This is one of those "it depends on the circumstances" questions. Police can obtain consent to search from anyone with control over the property; however any occupant of a residence can refuse consent, even if other occupants agree to a search. Unfortunately, you must be present in order to assert your refusal. The Supreme Court has ruled that...
-
Yes. Minors generally have the same rights as adults. For example, minors can refuse searches and decline to answer questions without an attorney present. Nevertheless, minors face unique challenges when attempting to exercise these rights...
-
During a legitimate traffic stop, police may order the driver and any passengers out of the vehicle. This rule is intended to protect officers' safety, but it's often used for investigatory purposes...
-
College students suffer from an unfortunate lack of privacy rights in many situations. The university owns the dorm, so school officials can often search rooms at their own discretion. College students still have 4th Amendment rights that apply in other situations...
-
The sad fact is that most people believe that they are under some kind of obligation to acquiesce when an officer contacts them and asks permission to search them or their belongings. The truth is exactly the opposite...
-
No. The Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to...
-
Simply put, the number of arrests an officer makes is a major factor used to determine his job performance. Police officers know that the easiest way to make arrests is to find people in possession of illegal drugs, so they want to search everyone they can find...
-
No. We believe that most police officers are good, hardworking people who are doing a tough job. We need police to safeguard the life, liberty, and property of all people. To do this best, police officers should...
-
In addition to compromising your safety and the safety of others, driving drunk is one of the stupidest things you can do, and one of the easiest ways to create overwhelming legal problems for yourself. DUI laws vary from state to state, and they have become increasingly harsh over the years...
-
Videotaping or photographing police in public places is usually legal, so long as you don't interfere with their activities. Nonetheless, doing so will often get you arrested...
-
Unfortunately, many people get fooled by some version of this commonly used police officer's line: "Everything will be easier if you just cooperate". That's true to some extent -- it will make things much easier for the police officer who's trying to arrest you! -- but when it comes to you consenting to searches and answering incriminating questions, it couldn't be further from the truth...
-
No. The courts have made it clear that police officers do not have to tell people that they can refuse to consent to a warrantless search. Also, contrary to the belief perpetuated by popular police television shows, a person will not be read their rights subsequent to being taken into custody. A person only needs to be Mirandized when...
-
Everyone should be trained to assert their constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment in order to avoid the hassle and humiliation of police misconduct and illegal searches. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report on citizen-police contacts...
|
Miranda Rights
Miranda v. Arizona [384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966)]
Ernesto Miranda, a rape suspect, was arrested and taken to the police station. After two hours of questioning, he signed a written confession and was subsequently found guilty. Miranda appealed his conviction on the grounds that prior to confessing, he had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The Supreme Court overturned Miranda's conviction, finding that the coercive nature of detention in a police station necessitates certain safeguards in order to ensure that suspects do not naively waive their rights. The ruling held that when law enforcement officers take a suspect into custody with the intention of conducting an interrogation, they must inform the suspect of certain fundamental conditions:
- The suspect has the right to remain silent.
- Anything the suspect says can be used against him/her in court.
- The suspect has the right to an attorney.
- If the suspect cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided at no charge.
The Court imposed these limitations upon law enforcement officers for the purpose of ensuring that criminal suspects do not waive constitutional rights as a result of not knowing how to properly exercise them. This ruling had broad ramifications for all police officers, who have since been required to issue Miranda warnings to all suspects that are taken into custody and questioned.
What you should know about your Miranda Rights:
We are all aware of the contents of the Miranda warning. It is recited on police television shows every day and can be repeated verbatim by most Americans, though often without a thorough understanding of its significance. In short, the Miranda warning is an acknowledgement of the criminal suspect's right to take what is always the best course of action for any arrestee -- to say nothing until you've spoken with a lawyer.
Still, the Miranda warning is frequently misunderstood as encompassing all lawful detentions by police. It should be noted that Miranda does NOT apply under the following circumstances:
- Questions asked at a crime scene.
- Any statements volunteered by the suspect at any time.
- Questioning of individuals for fact-finding purposes.
- Questioning during an investigatory stop.
These exceptions are significant in that they encompass many situations in which police acquire important evidence from suspects who are under no legal obligation to answer questions. In many cases, police officers acquire probable cause to arrest a suspect due to his/her own answers to police questions at the crime scene. Thus the following should be remembered with regards to Miranda warnings:
- If police have arrested you and plan to interrogate you about a crime, they must read you a Miranda warning.
- While this process is often referred to as "reading you your rights" police will only inform you of your right against self-incrimination and your right to an attorney.
- Other than identifying yourself, you are under no obligation to disclose information to the police at any time.
- The right against self-incrimination excludes statements made voluntarily. Anything you say to a police officer of your own free will at any time can be used against you.
- There is no reason to disclose information to the police about your involvement in a crime prior to speaking with a lawyer.
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|