CJUS440 Unit 1 Individual Project

docx

School

Colorado Technical University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

440

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by PrivateDiscovery16466

Miranda v Arizona and Terry v Ohio. Joanie E. Andrews Colorado Technical University Online CJUS440: The Laws of Evidence Professor David Browne September 3, 2023

Title: Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Facts: On March 14, 1963, law enforcement officials arrived at Ernesto Miranda's doorstep in Phoenix, Arizona. They had circumstantial evidence showing his involvement in a kidnapping and rape case. Officers then took Miranda into custody and placed him under arrest. After two hours of interrogation, Ernesto Miranda signed a statement in which he confessed knowingly and voluntarily. However, the law enforcement officials did not inform him of his right to remain silent, his right to have a lawyer, and that any of his statements during the interrogation process could be used against him. Miranda was denied legal representation at a preliminary hearing on March 27, 1963. Counsel objected to the admission of Miranda's signed confession as evidence, but the objection was overturned, and the confession was allowed as evidence. Miranda was later convicted of kidnapping and rape on June 12, 1963. Two years later, on the same day as his conviction, his case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona, claiming that the police had obtained his confession illegally. However, the court upheld his conviction, and Miranda then appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. On November 15, 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear his case. On January 23, 1966, John J. Flynn and John P. Frank, Miranda's counsels, presented their argument that law officials had violated Miranda's 6th Amendment right to counsel. Arizona responded two weeks later, claiming that Miranda's rights had not been violated. February 28, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Miranda v Arizona. The case was about how Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights were violated. The next day, March 1, 1966, the court continued with oral arguments. Many claims against Arizona were discussed during this day, specifically about violating Sixth Amendment rights.

Issues : In Miranda v. Arizona, the dilemma was whether a confession or statement obtained by law enforcement without informing the suspect of their rights could be admissible as evidence in a court of law. Decisions: On June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's conviction be overturned and his case be remanded back to Arizona for retrial. It was at this point that the Miranda Warning was created. This warning ensures suspects know their rights before making a statement to Law Enforcement Officials. The Miranda warning states, "You have the right to remain silent. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." You have the right to an attorney; if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you." Reasonings: The decision in Miranda v. Arizona rested upon the infringement of Miranda's Constitutional rights as protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Specifically, the Fifth Amendment safeguards against self-incrimination, while the Sixth Amendment allows the right to legal representation. Dissenting opinions: During a Supreme Court hearing, the Justices engaged in a lively debate about interpreting the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. Justice Clark expressed concern that the majority's opinion could limit the police's ability to perform their duties effectively. Justice White, however, argued that the Amendment's protections extended to

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

defendants who were explicitly compelled to testify. Meanwhile, Justice Harlan believed that the Fifth Amendment's safeguards only applied in court, not during police interrogations. He also expressed skepticism that the decision would prevent instances of police brutality. Justices White, Stewart, and Clark disagreed with the opinion that the police should not gather evidence from the accused.

Title: Terry v Ohio 392 U. S. 1 (1968) Facts : On October 31, 1963, Cleveland Police Detective Martin McFadden, who had an impressive 39-year experience in the force, was on duty at Euclid Avenue when he noticed three individuals acting suspiciously outside a jewelry store. Detective McFadden, being a keen observer of the environment, suspected that the men were planning to rob the store and were carrying firearms. To confirm his suspicion, he identified himself as a police officer and asked the trio for their names. However, the men's responses were ambiguous and unclear, which led McFadden to frisk them. During the search, he discovered a loaded gun in John Terry's overcoat pocket and another in Richard Chilton's coat pocket. The third man, Katz, was unarmed. Consequently, McFadden arrested Terry and Chilton for violating the law by carrying concealed weapons. In 1967, Terry was found guilty by Judge Bernard Friedman of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. The judge decided based on Terry's suspicious behavior and the police officer's safety concerns. Terry was suspected of carrying a concealed weapon, which prompted the officer to conduct a frisk. Terry appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court, but in June of 1968, the Court upheld the ruling. The Supreme Court proved that it is reasonable for an officer to briefly detain and perform a limited search for weapons on an individual the officer suspects may be carrying a gun. This ruling is commonly known as the "stop and frisk" doctrine, which allows police officers to conduct a pat-down search of individuals in certain situations. The Terry v. Ohio case is a landmark decision, proving the legal basis for the stop-and-frisk practices still used by law enforcement agencies today. The case has generated significant

controversy, as people argue that it has been used disproportionately against minority communities, leading to allegations of racial profiling and civil rights violations. Issue: Was the search and seizure of Terry, Chilton, and Katz, and whether this action violated their Fourth Amendment rights? The Fourth Amendment provides individuals with the right to feel secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects and protects them from unreasonable searches and seizures. This constitutional protection is absolute, and warrants can only be issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. They must identify the individual or item to be seized and the location to be searched. Any violation of these protections would breach the Fourth Amendment rights of those involved. Decisions: During the case proceedings, Officer McFadden's reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment was voted in favor of by a majority of 8 to 1. The weapon fees were allowed as evidence against the defendant, Terry. The court thoroughly scrutinized the case's details and concluded that Officer McFadden's actions were based on more than a mere hunch. A rational and prudent individual would have believed that Terry was armed and constituted a threat to the officer's safety during the investigation of Terry's suspicious behavior. Furthermore, the court saw that the searches were carefully limited in scope and conducted to safeguard the officer's well-being during the investigation. Reasoning: According to the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officials have the right to stop and frisk individuals if they suspect that the person has engaged in criminal activity. Furthermore, if

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

there is a reasonable belief that the individual is carrying a weapon, officers may conduct a frisk as a precautionary measure for their safety. Dissenting opinions: Justice William O. Douglas strongly disagreed with the permissibility of performing a stop-and-frisk action absent probable cause. He argued that the police had more authority to conduct a "seizure" and a "search" than a judge did. This meant that law enforcement officials could legally stop and search individuals without a warrant or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, which Douglas considered a violation of civil liberties. He believed this practice could easily lead to abuse of power by the police and was, therefore, a threat to the principles of justice and fairness.

Miranda Rights and their Importance The Miranda warning, also known as Miranda rights, is a vital set of legal protections that individuals in police custody must be informed of before any police interrogation. These rights were established in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda rights include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, the right to stop the interrogation at any time, and the right to know that any statements made can be used against them in court. It is crucial to understand that the Miranda warning is not just a formality but a critical component of the legal system that safeguards against self-incrimination and ensures a fair legal process. Any statements made during an interrogation without informing the suspect of their Miranda rights can be considered inadmissible in court. Additionally, law enforcement officers must adhere to the Miranda warning protocol to prevent any violations of constitutional rights and ensure a just legal process. Miranda rights are not a mere formality but a fundamental aspect of the legal system that must be taken seriously to safeguard the rights of suspects. “Pat down” and its Importance A pat-down, also known as a frisk, is a quick inspection of a person's outer clothing by a law enforcement officer to identify potential weapons. A pat-down’s primary goal is to keep everyone safe rather than to gather evidence for a court case. If the officer discovers anything suspicious during the pat-down, they may conduct a more thorough search. During a pat-down, the officer may use their hands to feel for any objects that threaten their safety or that of others. They may also ask the individual to empty their pockets, turn out their sleeves, and remove bulky

outerwear such as jackets or coats. The officer may conduct a more extensive search of the individual's vehicle or belongings if necessary. Pat-downs are a protective measure that law enforcement officers may use if they have reasonable suspicion that a suspect carries a weapon and poses a danger to public safety. Reading arrested individuals their rights and Miranda rights during Trial Miranda rights are a set of legal protections individuals in police custody must be informed of before any police interrogation. This legal obligation was set up in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda warning consists of several essential rights, including the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, the right to terminate the interrogation at any time, and the right to know that any statements made can be used against them in court. The Miranda warning is a critical part of the legal system that protects against self-incrimination and ensures a fair legal process. Failure to inform the suspect of their Miranda rights can lead to the exclusion of any statements made during an interrogation in a court of law. This is because such comments may have been made under duress or without the suspect's complete understanding of their legal rights, which can violate their Fifth Amendment rights. It is crucial to note that law enforcement officers must adhere to the Miranda warning protocol to prevent any violations of constitutional rights and ensure a just legal process. Miranda rights are not a mere formality but a fundamental aspect of the legal system that must be taken seriously to safeguard the rights of suspects. Therefore, it is essential to understand the significance of the Miranda warning and ensure that it is appropriately administered to protect the rights of those in police custody.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Miranda v Arizona and Terry v Ohio. Miranda v. Arizona and Terry v. Ohio are two seminal court cases that have profoundly affected the American Criminal Justice System. In 1966, the Supreme Court's Miranda v Arizona decision established criminal suspects' rights during police interrogations. The court's ruling requires law enforcement officials to inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and their Sixth Amendment right to counsel before questioning occurs. In contrast, Terry v Ohio, decided by the Supreme Court in 1968, clarified the police's power to detain and search individuals suspected of criminal activity. This case set up the legal framework for police officers to conduct "stop-and-frisk" searches, which are brief, warrantless searches of individuals based on reasonable suspicion. These landmark cases are critical to our Criminal Justice System, and their influence is still clear today. They underscore the importance of safeguarding our Constitutional Rights, especially under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. These cases have played a fundamental role in shaping how law enforcement officials interact with suspects and the public, and they continue to be scrutinized and cited in legal matters and academic research.

Resources 392 US 1 (1968) ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/ ) https://casebriefs.com 384 US 436 (1966) ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/ ) “Miranda v. Arizona.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759 . Accessed 30 Aug.2023. “Terry v. Ohio. “Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67.Accessed 2 Sept.2023 . Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio . Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorney - Martine Law PLLC , https://www.xmartinelaw.com/minneapolis-criminal-defense-attorney/ . Miranda v. Arizona impact: What are your rights? - azcentral.com , https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2021/03/08/miranda-v-arizona-what-your- rights-during-interrogation/6892291002/ .

CJUS440 Unit 1 Individual Project

Related Documents