Respond to:

Paige

Miranda V Arizona involved the arrest of Miranda in his home and was brought to the Police Station for questioning. Miranda was taken into custody by police for interrogation purposes where he later confessed, but he was not informed of his right to the Fifth Amendment, which is the right to remain silent and right to have counsel present. The Supreme Court held that a suspect must be informed of their Fifth Amendment rights when taken into custody. Dickerson V United States raised Miranda Rights to the next level of constitutional necessity. Dickerson made a statement during an FBI interrogation and claimed his Miranda rights were not read to him prior, therefore his statement cannot be included in his trial. The Supreme Court in Miranda v Arizona held that a person must be given certain warnings before his statements made during a custodial interrogation would be eligible as evidence against him. Dickerson asked to suppress the statement he made during an interrogation, and the Court ruled certiorari due to the importance of the case and Miranda Rights. The statement made by Dickerson was a voluntary response and I think that justifies his rights but also being able to use that evidence against him to be guilty of his crimes. After viewing cases in terms of the Fifth Amendment and Miranda Rights, it has become embedded into criminal law and policing every day, so it is an everyday practice.

Tayliegh

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, is a court case that establishes that all law enforcement has to tell their offenders their rights when being obtained and before being interrogated. In this case, a man was taken from his home to be interrogated but was never told his Miranda Rights. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, is a court case that is dealing with police behavior when issuing with Miranda warning. In this case the offender argued he couldn't confess because the language of the first waiver he signed made the confession inadmissible. Both of these cases deal with offenders getting the right to know their rights clearly. Yes, I agree with the court's actions in both cases because I think it is important that offenders get to know their rights just in case something isn't being done right on the courts side of the case. It's the offenders' rights to know how to take action if things are being done unfairly. Miranda has ignited a long-running political controversy because during the Miranda v. Arizona case, it was never clear if Miranda was granted his rights before he was interrogated.