2007-12-15 22:03:36 · 10 answers · asked by Negra 2 !!!!! 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The Supreme Court says it's required in order to ensure that law enforcement agents don't violate the constitution by pressuring or misleading arrested persons to be afraid to assert their rights to remain silent and consult a lawyer. The rule only applies to persons in actual police custody because in that situation a person is more likely, due to fear, to be persuaded that he has no rights. The court decided essentially that constitutional rights would be meaningless if persons who needed to assert them were prevented from doing so.
2007-12-16 01:09:58 · answer #1 · answered by alex42z 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually police do not have to issue you Miranda until they start questioning you about the crime.
Suppose a perp is shot by the police, the person falls over and is bleeding. Obviously he is under arrest. Police do not have to Mirandize this person if they are asking him or her about medical attention... Questions like "where are you shot?", "Can you hear me", "Are you OK?" Do not require Miranda.
Once police start questioning you about a crime after you have been placed under arrest, they must Mirandize you. If they do not, anything you say will likely get thrown out of court.
But, information you volunteer before being Mirandized is admissible.
I believe in Miranda. And, it is a Supreme Court decision.
2007-12-16 11:32:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No it is not, it was in acted in 1966 when the US Supreme Court rule in favor of a kidnapping suspect who did not no he had the right to remain silent, which is part of our 5th amendment right, and to have a attorney present at time of questioning. So the Miranda warning is just that in acted by the Supreme Court of Ariz. and not part of the US. Constitution.
Before warned though the police don't have to read the Miranda warning when the are just questioning and you are not a suspect in a crime, only after you are arrested then they will need to read Miranda warnings before questioning.
....cya....
2007-12-16 06:49:30 · answer #3 · answered by tmin 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it's a Supreme court ruling, not a constitutional mandate. It is a majority opinion over a principle of Constitutional law. It is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
2007-12-16 06:08:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. It is a supreme court ruling made pursuant to the constitution. The supreme court cannot make whatever rules they want. They can only rule something if the constitution says so.
2007-12-16 06:10:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
2007-12-16 06:09:39 · answer #6 · answered by Gray Wanderer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Appearantly not, as I was not recited any rights when I got arrested. When I complained, I was told that it was irrelevent, because the charge against me had nothing to do with what I might or might not say. Which made about no sense to me...
2007-12-16 06:07:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No it is required by a Supreme Court ruling.
I support it 100%; in case you are keeping score!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-12-16 06:07:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
its a rule designed to remind the citizen they dont have to cave in to police intimidation and that they have rights.
no...its not required, but its in place to help safeguard citizen rights...so in that sense it is required.
2007-12-16 06:07:02 · answer #9 · answered by ron j 1 · 3⤊ 2⤋
yes
2007-12-16 06:07:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋