Miranda

Miranda (Your Name (Your University

2007

Miranda

The Miranda warnings are necessary only in cases where criminal suspects are under police custody and interrogation . The Court in interpreting the term `custody ' in the case of Orozco v . Texas held that it consists of the restriction of freedom of movement by police (394 U .S . 324 ) It further ruled in the case of Rhode Island v . Innis that `interrogation ' is said to exist whenever police reasonably expect that a suspect is likely to offer incriminating information (446 U .S 291 p

The criminal suspect must be effectively informed and advised of these warnings during custodial investigation otherwise any evidence or statement which may be obtained from the criminal suspect shall be inadmissible in evidence against him during trial (Miranda v . Arizona 384 U .S . 436

Based on the doctrine enunciated by the Court , the Miranda warnings are grounded in the Constitution (Dickerson v . U .S , 530 U .S 428 . In fact it is already a constitutional rule . It is primarily for the purpose of ensuring the constitutional rights of the criminal suspect , i .e . his Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (Escobedo v Illinois , 378 U .S . 478 ) including the right to due process of the law (Oxford Companion , 2005

The doctrine finds its basis on the fact that custodial investigations are most often characterized by inherently intense and pressure-filled environment whereby the criminal suspect is at a disadvantageous position and the police officers are at an advantage Thus , the criminal suspect is more at risk to be compelled to make statements and admissions either to vindicate himself or admit his guilt out of fear . The Miranda warnings are protective safeguards to ensure that the criminal suspect is not intimidated to make a confession notwithstanding the persuasion strategies and the antagonistic environment of custodial interrogation carried out by the law enforcement officers

In the given case , Police Officer Watson should have informed the suspect of the Miranda warnings before he asked whether he (suspect ) has thrown the weapon . The situation can be seen as one where the criminal suspect is under police custody and the questioning of Police Officer Watson , as the beginning of the custodial interrogation . As emphasized by the Court in several cases , being under police custody does not necessarily mean that the criminal suspect is in the police station . A person can be considered as being under police custody even in one 's home provided that movement is restricted by the police (Orozco v Texas , 446 U .S . 291 . Moreover , when the suspect was brought to the stationhouse for interrogation , he should be informed of the Miranda warnings otherwise , the confession that was elicited out of the criminal suspect shall be inadmissible in evidence in court under the exclusionary rule This confession cannot be used against the suspect except to impeach his own testimony [Harris v . New York (1971 , 401 U .S 222 (1971 )] . Albeit the rights under the Miranda rule...