Miranda v. Arizona: Protecting Rights From Police Interrogations - Case Study

Introduction

The Supreme Court, in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, had made a ruling that any person in custody needs to be advised on the Fifth Amendment right. The right involves the protection of an individual against self-incrimination while the sixth amendment right is to have a lawyer before the day of their interrogation.no one knew their rights before the case of Miranda hence the law enforcement, in this case, would take advantage of it through piling pressure on the suspected individuals into coercion.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Consequently, in a bid to protect ones fifth as well as the sixth amendment right, a set of statements was devised by the Supreme Court, which was referred to as Miranda rights. The officials involved in the law enforcement were hence needed to read to the defendant who is under the interrogation (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). Miranda's' statements faced a lot of criticism as people had a belief that the ability of the law enforcement to protect the public against the criminals had been weakened by the court and hence could result in the creation of way the said criminals could evade their prosecution.

The Ruling of the Case

The supreme court, in this case, held that there might be no use of statements in the prosecution which comes about as result of an individual's interrogation unless the use of the proper procedures is exhibited. The constitutional rights up-held against the case of self-incrimination. The standing of the supreme court remained fixed that a person needs to be warned before any interrogation that they are obliged to be silent; otherwise whatever they will say can be used against them during the judgment (McBride, 2006). Besides, they have a full right to the attorney's presence or one be appointed for them just before their interrogation. Besides, Miranda's rights waiver might be implied through the conduct or the oral statements, and it should not necessarily be in writing.

Miranda influenced my decision-making process by revealing that Miranda applies the initiated questioning by the officers in law enforcement after one has been arrested and detained in custody or deprived of their freedom of action (The Miranda Warning, 2010). With John Smith, this was not the case since he waived his rights voluntarily by blurting his statement out which did not arise from an interrogation by the officers in the law enforcement.

Jewellery Store Robbery

Surveillance and Arrest

There is new technology that could have been utilized by the detectives in his surveillance and arrest. To escape his defence attorney claiming that the detective conducted a search which was unlawful when he located the gun. The new technology that was used incorporated the use of a thermal imaging device. The device had the power of detecting the emitted heat by an object regardless of the conditions of light and is not affected by clothing. In the use of this technology, the thermal detective would have detected the handgun and video obtained by the thermal imager submitted to act as an evidence (Harvey, 2006). Contrary to the case of Kyllo v. United States where the supreme court had made a ruling that the use of the thermal imaging devices in obtaining information of the heat emanation from home or its interior does not constitute a warrantless search (Kyllo v. the United States, 2001), the case, therefore, needed no warrant as result of the detectives having the possible cause that a crime was about to be committed since the jewellery store within the past one month for numerous times.

Ruling

Basing on Terry v. Ohio case, the supreme court had ruled that the officer was working on the reasonable task of a suspicious behaviour investigation and was hence authorized legally to detain the defendant briefly and also conduct a limited search of the outer clothing (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Also, the Court held that "the search and seizure of the revolver were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment" (Terry v. Ohio, 1968).

The ruling that I would make based on Terry v. Ohio was that detective was indeed justified in conducting and also stopping Wilson's pat-down and that the stated proof is admissible in the court of law. Since Wilson exhibited a suspicious behaviour and the jewellery store had been robbed severally, the detective had not violated the fourth amendment right of Wilson by doing a limited search of the outer clothing as well as the investigatory stop which had led to the seizure and the handgun's discovery.

Effective Performance

The ruling justice's decision in the case of Terry v. Ohio influenced the law enforcement's effective performance by holding that every officer is considered to be playing a legitimate role during the investigation of the suspicious conduct which displayed by the men in the current case and also in the case of Terry v. Ohio.

Rape Investigation

Technology

The DNA analysis is currently an advancing technology which is available for the crimes related to rape. The testing of the DNA has been an essential tool in the field of criminology. It has helped in the conviction of the guilt and also exoneration of the innocent. DNA testing has been growing rapidly, and also new DNA analysis methods have been emerging (Butler, 2015). This kind of technology has always provided breakthroughs in cases which have not been solved. The advancements in the DNA have not been able to keep with the growth of the testing and hence has resulted in a substantial backlog of the samples for testing.

Limitations or Regulations

There have been delays in the DNA testing since most of the samples have been kept in the custody while a few others are in the crime labs for the investigation. Some of the factors which have led to these delays include; inadequate professional forensic scientists, shortage of funds or resources and also lack of special facilities or updated technology (Murnaghan, 2018).

PreSentence Investigation

Constitutional Constraints

Basing on the case of Miller v. Alabama the constitutional limitations which were placed upon the judge to an ethical sentence in the case are that the juveniles have a disparity from the adults mainly for sentencing which entails their sense of responsibility as well as lack of maturity (Hart, 2003). This makes them more susceptible to negative influences as well as peer pressure. Besides, it is a violation of the eighth amendment to have a juvenile for life imprisonment with no possibility of the parole.

Sentencing Laws

The case of Miller v. Alabama led to the transformation of the sentencing laws and also impacted on the role of the criminal justice practitioner. The came out since there as separation of the guidelines of the sentencing of the juvenile from guidelines of the adults and also acknowledging that the increased capacity for change of the juveniles well as the weakened culpability made the life sentences in prison without parole possibility unconstitutional (Miller v. Alabama, 2012).

Hinckley

Model Penal Code Test

Model Penal Code (or MPC) test was a test designed to determine whether someone was insane at the time he committed the offence. Under this test, one is not for criminal offences and must be found without any guilt because of insanity if when he/she committed the crime, the individual suffered from a defect or the mental disorder which led to the individual's lack of substantial capacity to differentiate the right from wrong (Thomson Reuters, n.d.). If MPC test were applied to John Hinckley case, he would not be held liable for his actions and hence must not be judged for his guilt by insanity since as the defence psychiatrist had diagnosed him legally insane during the time the crime was committed.

Burden of Proof

On the off chance that the present statutory test was applied to the John Hinckley case, Mr Hinckley would be found guilty. This is because of the reality it requires a person to have a psychological disorder or deformity, which is viewed as extreme. Since the burden of proof has moved from the arraignment to the safeguard, Mr Hinkley and his barrier group would have been required to demonstrate that he experienced a "serious" mental illness, which they didn't do ("637. Insanity-Present Statutory Test-18 U.S.C. 17(a)", 2018).

Historical Milestone Case

In 1993 the historical passed a bill that amended the gun control act. Which was referred to as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (or Brady Act) (Linder, 2007). This act included a numerous provisions, but the most important of the changes was the demand that the attorney general comes up with a nationwide system for instant verification of the prospective purchasers of the handgun and directed the officer in the law enforcement of very jurisdiction to conduct the tasks and on a daily basis perform a similar task until operation stability of the nationwide system. In the case of Printz v. the United States, the Supreme Court denied the provisions of the Brady act since they intruded unconstitutionally on the sovereignty of the state with the tenth amendment (Printz v. United States, 1997).

Defense Attorney

Defence for the Client

Finding mental retardation in any criminal will be rendered only in cases of felony. To ascertain the mental illness of the defendant, he or she must submit to the psychiatrist or a psychologist examination test. "in the chance that the defendant is seen not as liable by reason of insanity at the hour of the wrongdoing, the defendant will be carried out to a state psychological well-being office" If the defendant is seen as blameworthy however rationally sick at the hour of the wrongdoing, the defendant will be put in the custody of the Department of Corrections which will have obligation regarding the assessment and treatment of the emotional wellness needs of the defendant (Gardner, 2015). Therefore as a defence for my client, insanity based on him thinking that he did nothing wrong with an evidence from trained psychiatrists or psychologists, he/she could be found without any guilt by the insanity reason and hence be committed to any mental health facility of the state (Inazu, 2017).

Narcotics Detective

Ethical Investigation

In Kyllo v. United States case an agent of the department of the United States believed Kyallo was growing some of the marijuana within his home which demanded lamps of high intensity. To find out if the degree of the emanation of heat from Kyallo's home was majorly consistent with the use of high-intensity lamps. In this case, a thermal imaging device was used by an agent in scanning home exterior while sited in his vehicle on the street (Kyllo v. the United States, 2001). Since the supreme court had made a ruling that the use of a thermal imaging device I obtaining the information regarding home interior or even heat coming out of home which could be obtained without physical entrance into the protected area and this was a violation of the Fourth amendment may be a warrant is acquired within the right time, there will be a need of securing the warrants in using thermal imaging for the determination of whether there is extreme heat from the basement.

Basing on the Thermal Imaging Technology, the utilization of warm imaging innovation has affected analysts in both a positive and negative way with regards to performing moral examinations in tranquillize related cases. This innovation enables criminologists to see their surroundings in another manner by giving a "heat picture" of their condition and has been incredibly useful in deciding whether the measure of warmth exuding from a house is reliable with the utilization of high-force lights which is required for developing marijuana inside.

Constitutional Parameters

If I were the judge in the case of Kyllo v. the United States the...