Law Homework Help

Help me study for my Law class. I’m stuck and don’t understand.

Students must provide a critical review of the questions, topics and issues posed and substantively reply to the contributions of at least three peers. Individual postings should include a full discussion of the content of the question posed and explain how it relates to the concepts in the weekly text readings and other resources. The postings should be analytic in nature and include comparisons/contrasts, and examples that can bolster your point. The Discussion is for your benefit and it is important to respond to the discussion topic and to engage others in a running dialogue.

Your initial post should be 250 words. You should then respond to 3 or more posts 250 words each. 

This can be accomplished by:
• Validating with additional evidence from the literature.
• Posing a thoughtful question with a commentary which generates further discussion.
• Providing an alternative point-of-view, with evidence and examples.

• Offering additional insight into how the concept might be understood, with evidence provided with real world examples.

Fifth Amendment Question: Why should the police be required to advise suspects of their Fifth Amendment rights when police are not required to advise people who consent to searches that they need not give consent?  What is the difference? When does Miranda apply?  Give examples.  Support your position.

Classmate 1 Diane: My personal opinion is that people should be educated on their rights and law enforcement should not be required to advise them, neither their 4th, 5th or 6th Amendment rights. However, as a society we are not educated, so the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona ensures that law enforcement advise suspects of their 4th/5th Amendment rights when they are taken into custody. One important aspect of the Miranda warning that I was not aware of is the broad range of warning that “vary remarkably in their length, complexity, and comprehensibility” (Rogers, Harrison et al., 2007, pg. 188) Some are fewer than 60 words while others top 300 words. In this study it was found the complexity of warnings ranged from a 4th grade level to needing a college education to understand (Rogers, Harrison et al., 2007). For this reason, police should be required to offer a Miranda warning that is in simple English and understandable. An example is the common Miranda warning we hear on television shows and movies. This also gives a suspect the opportunity to say they do not understand their rights.

             The main difference between police asking for consent to search vs. needing to read Miranda rights is whether a person is in custody or not. When asked for consent to search, a person may be a suspect, but they are not in police custody and free to leave. Once in custody of the police, they must be read their Miranda rights prior to any interrogation or questioning. An interesting study found that even if the “arresting officer” was belligerent towards a suspect, suspect’s who believed in their innocence were just as likely to waive their Miranda rights than those who knew they were guilty (Kassin & Norwick, 2004). One way around this is for police to talk to a suspect and get a confession prior to making the arrest. In this case, if they reveal pertinent information or a confession before the arrest, it is not covered under the 5th Amendment/Miranda and is admissible in court.

The most important aspect of Miranda is that it protects from self-incrimination (5thAmendment) and provides legal counsel if requested (6th Amendment). It’s goal is to protect suspects from being coerced into providing a confession (real or not) to law enforcement. Miranda rights also ensure that they are not simply recited to a suspect, but that the suspect agrees that they understand the rights as they were presented to them.

e of the basic constitutional rights protected by both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Miranda rights must be read to a person when they are subject to a custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogations are conducted in a situation where the person is not free to leave. The person being questioned may voluntarily waive any or all of these rights and the right to remain silent can be invoked at any time.

Consent searches involve a process where the rights guaranteed by the constitution can be waived by the person that has the right. So if an individual gives the police permission to search and it is done voluntarily, then there is no violation of the person’s Fourth Amendment rights. Searches must be supported by probable cause, and while a large amount of cases are made because many don’t know what’s best for their legal interest the Supreme has ruled police are not obligated to inform citizens that they have the right to refuse consent. Studies have even concluded that requiring police to advise citizens of their right to refuse consent may have little effect on the answer. 

There are many situations where a person may not necessarily feel free to leave, but they are not in “custody” for Miranda purposes. Miranda does not come into play when an officer stops a person briefly to speak with them on the street, or during traffic stops.  Or because the questioning does not involve officer asking questions to the suspect, instead the suspect confesses Miranda does not apply. 

The failure to read Miranda Rights is only an issue if there were a confession or a statement that was used as evidence against a person. The Miranda Rule is also time specific, if an interrogation takes place one day and a follow up is done the next day officers must mirandize the suspect again. Testimonial evidence and resulting physical evidence may possibly be suppressed as “Fruit of the poisonous tree” if Miranda rights were required and not given. It doesn’t matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, on scene or some other place if a person is in custody and considered deprived of his or her freedom of action in any way police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial.

References

Edge Staff (2017) When Does the Miranda Rule Apply? Retrieved from https://amuedge.com/when-does-the-miranda-rule-apply/

Sommers, R & Bohns, V. (2019) The Voluntariness of Voluntary Consent: Consent Searches and the Psychology of Compliance (April 10, 2019). Yale Law Journal, Vol. 128, No. 7, Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3369844

Classmate 3 Rickena: The Fifth Amendment is defined as No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation(“Fifth Amendment”, 2021). 

Miranda rights are coming from both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the Fifth Amendment protects the person from self- incrimination while the Sixth Amendment gives the person the right to an attorney. Miranda rights are given to suspects once the officer is either detaining the person or placing them under arrest. Many Americans don’t know their rights and don’t know what they can and can’t do when dealing with law enforcement. Police officers are required to read them their rights to inform them, that they don’t have to talk to them, hey can have an attorney and if they do talk to them, whatever they say will be used against them. In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda was arrested and charged with rape and kidnapping after he was questioned for two hours. Miranda signed a confession and it was used against him at his trial; Miranda was convicted but he appealed to all the way to the United States Supreme Court and the court found that his confession shouldn’t have been used since Miranda didn’t know he had the right to remain silent and have an attorney present; so if an officer detains or arrests you without giving you Miranda rights, whatever you say to him or her cant be used against you in court. When you are under arrest, you aren’t free to leave on your own and you are being charged with a crime so police officers must tell  you, your rights and once arrested or detained, they don’t need permission to look around. Consent to search is different; the officer needs your permission to search and during this search you can stop it at any time. Your also not being charged with a crime and being detained so you are free to stop the search and leave at any time. For instance, being stopped for speeding, doesn’t mean the officer has to read my Miranda rights; although I’m pulled over, the officer doesn’t see anything in plain view and I’m not under arrest. However, if I’m pulled over for speeding and once the officer comes to my window and smells weed, he then has probable cause to search and if he finds more, I would be arrested and read my Miranda rights.

References

Fifth Amendment. (2021). Retrieved 31 March 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment

Staff, Ncc. (2017). The Miranda warning is created 52 years ago today – National Constitution Center. Retrieved 31 March 2021, from https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-miranda-wa…