If you have ever watched a crime TV show or seen a film with police officers arresting someone, you've probably heard of the Miranda rights. Arresting law enforcement officials usually read off a litany of rights to an individual as they are being arrested in order to protect their Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions that may be self-incriminating. You are most certainly familiar with the actor stating that the individual has the "right to remain silent."
What are the Miranda rights and where did they come from? They are referred to by the name "Miranda" due to a famous court case decision involving an individual by the name of Ernesto Miranda who was convicted of criminal offenses based upon his confession. The arresting and interrogating officers never offered Miranda the opportunity to speak with a lawyer. It was found later in a Supreme Court decision that Miranda's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated during the criminal process.
If the Miranda rights are violated, the accused individual (or his or her attorney) may be able to file a motion to suppress the testimony given by the accused during interrogation or questioning. That means that the evidence (meaning what the accused person said to the police) might not be admissible in court during the trial.
It is important that proper procedure is followed during an arrest and questioning. The Miranda rights are a perfect example of how law enforcement is strictly bound to follow those rules.
What are the specific points that an officer must cover when "mirandizing" someone? The Supreme Court decision did not set forth a particular wording or patter that must be followed, rather, they set forth several guidelines: "The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him."
Many states may vary the exact wording, or include other aspects. For example, some border states include language about contacting the consulate of your home country if you are not a citizen of the United States. The basic message across the entire country is, however, quite similar. No matter what the situation entails, the arresting officers must make sure that you understand your legal rights before questioning you. If you choose to waive your rights, the police are able to use anything and everything you say against you in a court of law in order to convict you of a crime, if the circumstances call for it.
The fact of the matter is that many individuals are not aware of their constitutional rights and if they are not informed of such, it might result in an unjust treatment of the individual. If you are not aware that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives you the right to refuse to answer any questions that might incriminate yourself, then you might give information that would result in a miscarriage of justice. This has been clearly upheld throughout the country since the Miranda v. Arizona case in 1966.
There, as is often present in the law, exceptions to the Miranda rule in which "involuntary" statements have been admissible in court, but it is generally safe to say that these rights are in place to protect arrested individuals from unjust treatment by law enforcement.
