Subscribe to LexTalk to stay on top of today’s legal issue and trends.
Catapult Your Career |
Industry Insights & Trends |
Product Training & Tips
Miranda was not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation, nor was his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any other manner. Without these warnings the statements were inadmissible. - Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. June 13, 1966)
This month marks the 51st Anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Miranda decision. Here’s a look at some article and insights into the Miranda case:
Cited more than 60K times since it was issued in 1966, the Miranda decision balances effective police practices with the protection of individual constitutional rights.
Perhaps the most far-reaching impact of the Miranda decision has been on the creation and protection of civil liberties in America.
Because the driver is not considered to be in custody when he or she is initially stopped, the officer is not required to read the detainee his or her Miranda rights.
It wasn’t long after the Supreme Court ruling on Miranda v. Arizona that Dragnet’s Sargent Joe Friday began apprising suspects of their rights in nearly every episode.
Six Supreme Court opinions that, after a collision of arguments and ideologies, have rippled (and continue to ripple) through the fabric of space and time.