Premium Essay

Miranda V Arizona Brief Irac

In: Other Topics

Submitted By JIMJAZ2012
Words 295
Pages 2
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
(1) Facts: Miranda was unaware of his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and offered incriminating evidence during police interrogations.
(2) Issues: The question is whether or not the police is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants?
(3) Rule: The U.S. Supreme Court established a “bright line” rule to govern custodial interrogations, maintaining that they are inherently coercive because: (a) Suspects are held in strange surroundings where they’re not free to leave, and (b) Skilled police officers use unrefined methods to “crack” the will of suspects. The bright-line rule prevents police coercion while still allowing police pressure. During custodial interrogations, police must give suspects the famous four warnings: (a) You have a right to remain silent, (b) Anything you say can and will be used against you in court, (c) You have a right to a lawyer, and (d) If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you.
(4) Application: The Supreme Court further explained that the process of interrogation is already intimidating, and the suspect must be read his rights to counteract this intimidation. Then the Court outlined the way in which a suspect must be informed of his rights. This must take place before the suspect is questioned, and an officer doesn't have to do it while placing someone under arrest as long as they don't interrogate the suspect in any way.
(5) Conclusion: The Supreme Court ruled that based on the testimony and admission given, Miranda was obviously never informed of his right to council or to avoid self-incrimination. As a result, the Court reversed the decision and…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Miranda vs. Arizona

...February 25, 2013 PLS 135 Miranda vs. Arizona In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. Ernesto Miranda was the plaintiff and the state of Arizona was the defendant. Ernesto Miranda was convicted of the March 1963 kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl in Phoenix, Arizona. After the crime the police picked up Miranda because he fit the description of the girl’s attacker. The officers took him into an interrogation room and told him that he had been identified by the victim, although that was false. After the police questioned Miranda for two hours, he confessed. At the trial, the defense counsel tricked one of the detectives into admitting that Miranda was never given the opportunity to seek advice from an attorney before his interrogation. Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 40-60 years in prison. When he tried to appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court set aside his conviction. Then Chief Justice Warren wrote: “Prior to and questioning, the person must be warned that he has the right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed…” Miranda was retried, only this time without his confession being introduced into evidence at the trial, he was convicted again. Even though his......

Words: 589 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Miranda vs Arizona

...Miranda v Arizona Westwood College Miranda v. Arizona Every time someone is arrested the police officer reads them their right, which was not always the case. They read as followed "you have the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you can't afford one, one will be provided to you." But why do the officers have to remind the people of their rights, because of the Miranda v. Arizona case. Before the Miranda v. Arizona case people were not reminded or even aware that they had such rights. In the 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnap and rape. He was accused of kidnapping and raping a young girl and when the officers arrested Miranda and then the victim identified him. After the trial was done Miranda was found guilty because after being interrogated for a couple hours he confessed to the crime not knowing that the 5th amendment states you don't have to plead guilty if you do not want to. That is what self incrimination is, for example when Miranda was being asked about the crime he did not have to answer he could of just said he plead the 5th and said he wanted to wait for an attorney to both consult him and be with him while he was being interrogated. If Miranda would have known that he had that right he probably would not have incriminated himself. Miranda was also known to have some mental problems......

Words: 1127 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Irac Brief

...Risk Management- Drunken Patient Lawsuit LAW/531 February 17, 2014 Risk Management- Drunken Patient Lawsuit The IRAC method is an instructional tool that can aid students in the comprehension and evaluation of information so that they can make informed value decisions. It is an acronym for Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. Although this is a legal model used to evaluate hypothetical situations in law cases, it is by no means limited to the study of the law. Useful for case studies presented in varied mediums such as narratives, videos/films, or recordings, the IRAC method may be applied to other activities such as defining a term or demonstrating a concept, principle, relationship, analogy, or contrasting idea. Often the instructional focus is on the end result of case study discussion rather than on how to "walk through" a method or approach to be used by the students in the case analysis (Bittner, M.1990). Issue: A recent court ruling should motivate hospital risk managers to conduct a careful periodic review of their facility's procedures and legal obligations when it comes to treating intoxicated patients. The patient, Kevin Kowalski, later wandered onto a nearby highway and was struck by a car, leaving him paralyzed below the neck. Throughout the case, Mr. Kowalski contended that even though he decided on his own to leave the hospital, the hospital should have prevented him from doing so based on his level of inebriation. Analyze: In order to......

Words: 484 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Irac Brief

...Week 5 IRAC Brief Norma Chavez Clara McKinnie Delia Silva Alejandra Solorzano LAW/531 March 26, 2014 Michael John Abstract NovaStaar Investments, LLC is a private company that was formed in 1999 for the sole purpose of taking control of Staar Surgical Company by offering shareholders $15 per share. NovaStaar’s offer was rebuffed by the then board. Since then several shareholders and board members have approached NovaStaar about their interest in the company. NovaStaar will not reveal their level of interest in Staar until several issues have been resolved. Specifically the lawsuits involving former Chairman of the Board Andrew F. Pollet. Mr. Pollet filed a lawsuit against a former employee alleging libel and defamation of character. Mr. Pollet is also involved in other court action where he allegedly asked Staar board members to forgive debts he had incurred by borrowing money from Staar and where he was accused of pilfering from Staar and using company funds to pay his personal expenses. Week 5 IRAC Brief Methods for managing legal risk Society must balance business interest and injury to prevent legal liability. To minimize liability of legal risk the business and the individual must first understand the process. Once the knowledge has been obtained then the necessary steps can be taken to eliminate and reduce the effects of the risks involved in order to prepare accordingly. Issues On June 3, 1993 in Texas, Novastaar Investments, LLC, an......

Words: 976 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Miranda V Arizona

...Miranda v. Arizona: Half a Century Later by: September 2nd, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION A. Executive Summary – In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated the case Miranda v. Arizona the most important aspect of due process and criminal procedure ever affecting law enforcement and prosecutorial conduct of an investigation. The main issues in this case were: * The admissibility of a defendant’s statements if such statements were made while the defendant was held in police custody or deprived of freedom of movement in a significant way; * What procedures were required to guarantee the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination according to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? This case is considered the summit of the criminal procedure evolution establishing specific procedures to safeguard the rights of defendants beyond the courtroom and onto the police station. The procedural details and the breadth of civil rights tangled in these four cases, made this decision the pinnacle case in the area of criminal procedure. Nowadays, this decision gave the name to what is widely known as the “Miranda Warnings” which include: 1. The suspect has the right to remain silent, 2. Anything he/she says may be used as evidence against him, 3. He/she has a right to the presence of an attorney during questioning, and 4. If indigent, he/she has a right to a lawyer selected for him without charge. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATING TO THE...

Words: 1278 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Tison V Arizona

...Tison v. Arizona Citation. 481 U.S. 137, 107 S. Ct. 1676,95 L. Ed. 2d 127, 1987 U.S. 1808 Fact.The Petitioners are the sons of Gary Tison (Tison). Gary Tison had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a guard whom he killed in the course of a prison escape. After spending a number of years in jail, Tison’s wife, their three sons, Tison’s brother and other relatives engineered a prison escape. The escape was executed such that no shots were fired at the prison. However, after the escape, the getaway car had a flat tire. The group elected to flag down a passing motorist and steal a car. A car occupied by John Lyons, his wife Donnelda, his two-year-old son Christopher and his 15-year-old niece, Theresa Tyson, pulled over to render aid. Gary Tison and his former cellmate Randy Greenawalt, intentionally shot and killed all four passengers. Several days later, the Tisons and Greenawalt were apprehended at a police roadblock. A firefight broke out. Donald Tison was killed at the scene; Gary Tison was wounded and escaped into the desert where he later died. The two remaining Tison brothers were tried individually for capital murder in the deaths of the Lyonses. The murder charges were predicated on Arizona's felony-murder statute, which provided that killings that occurred during a robbery or kidnapping were first-degree, death-eligible murder. The Tison brothers were convicted. At a separate sentencing hearing, three aggravating factors were proved: the Tisons had......

Words: 756 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Law 531 Week 4 Irac Brief

...Learning Team ‘A’ Reflection: Week Four IRAC Brief LAW/531 May 12, 2014 Learning Team ‘A’ Reflection: Week Four IRAC Brief The Michigan Court of Appeals heard a case that involved the legality of forcing employee’s “to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs, despite the fact they do not belong to the union nor sought the union's so-called representation” ("Workers Defend Free Choice For Workers Against Spurious Union Boss Legal Challenge", 2014). The court ruled in favor of Michigan’s Right to Work Law that states, employees are not required to pay Union dues. The court stated that “the state had the power to make union membership optional” (Livengood, 2014). In this brief, we will identify how the legal concept of Right to Work is applied to relieve employees of compulsory union fees in a managerial setting using the IRAC method. Issue – Are mandatory service fees payable to collective bargaining agencies constitutional for state civil service non-union employees? Rule – “Agency shop” policies enforcing compulsory union fees may force employees to go against their own principles [Ellis v (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, 466 US 435, 455; 104 S Ct 1883; 80 L Ed 2d 428 (1984)]. Prohibiting or forcing employees to support ideological beliefs and unions violates a person’s constitutional right in the eyes of the State of Michigan. Analysis – The Michigan Court of Appeals considered the limits of the law to avoid infringing on laws......

Words: 857 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Miranda V Arizona

...Miranda v. Arizona (1966) In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery (Landmark Cases). After being arrested, Miranda was interrogated for hours where Miranda allegedly confessed to the crimes. He then stood trial were this confession being the only evidence from the prosecution and he was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Ernesto Miranda never finished the ninth grade, had a history of mental problems and received no counsel during the interrogation or trial. Following his conviction, Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court “claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” (Landmark Cases). The court upheld the conviction. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which finally looked at the case in 1966. Upon evaluation of the case the court found many flaws in the arrest of Ernesto Miranda. Under the Fifth Amendment the suspect has right to refuse to be a witness against himself and the Six Amendment, which gives a guarantee to a criminal defendants the right to an attorney (Landmark Cases). This is the police’s duty to inform all suspects of these rights, something that was not given prior to the two-hour interrogation. Chief Justice Earl Warren made this all part of the written decision in a 5-4 ruling by The Supreme Court that overturned the conviction of Ernesto Miranda (Landmark Cases). Ernesto Miranda would later be retried and convicted of the same crimes without......

Words: 416 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Hampton V. Dagenhart Brief

...George Michael Thompson Hammer v. Dagenhart Supreme Court of the United States, 1918 247 U.S. 251, 38 S. Ct. 529, 62 L.Ed2d. 1101 Votes: 8-1 Majority Opinion: Justice Day Dissenting: Justice Holmes Not Participating: None Facts: The Federal Child Labor Act of 1916 banned the shipment of products made in factories that employed children under the age of 14 or allowed children between the ages of 14-16 to work more than eight hours a day. Roland Dagenhart an employee along with his two minor sons in a North Carolina cotton mill filed a complaint in district court seeking to enjoin the act which he viewed was unconstitutional. The district court held that it was unconstitutional, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Statue or Provision of the Constitution in question: The Federal Child Labor Act of 1916 Questions: 1. Is the Federal Child Labor Act of 1916 unconstitutional? Holding: 1. Yes Reasoning: The Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority in passing this act as the issue of child labor was a purely local matter to which the federal government had no authority over. Commerce consists of intercourse and traffic the making or mining of goods is not commerce, and considering that the goods being shipped were of themselves harmless Congress could not clearly state they were regulating commerce when passing the act. The Court also stated that even thought it can be claimed that differing child labor laws among the states creates unfair competition...

Words: 392 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Week 2 Irac Brief

...IRAC Brief – Stryker Corporation and The Securities Exchange Commissions University of Phoenix IRAC Brief – Stryker Corporation and The Securities Exchange Commissions Introduction / Purpose Business managers are faced with challenges of legal risks by conducting domestic and international business transactions. To avoid misleading of accounting principles and fraudulent business practices an organization must retain strong internal controls within their international operations. Stryker Corporation had been recently confronted by Securities and Exchange Commissions and got a direct experience. In the following reflection, Team B applies the IRAC method of case analysis to observe Stryker’s treatment and conduct of violations connected to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). We will summarize four factors regarding IRAC: 1) issue 2) rule 3) analysis and conclusion. Thorough analysis of the IRAC results will help Team B’s interpretation of the significance of internal controls in handling legal risk in international business transactions. Issue Did “Stryker violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by making $2.2 million in unlawful payments to foreign government officials while describing the payments as legitimate expenses in the company’s books and records?” Did Stryker Corporation demonstrates intentional misrepresentation by failing to plan and preserve an acceptable system of internal accounting controls? Is intentional......

Words: 790 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Irac Brief Case Analysis

...IRAC Brief Case Analysis LaTasha Edwards, Margarita Castaneda, Jesse Ellison, and Jonathan Deschine University of Phoenix Business Law 531 James Rambeau July 1, 2015 IRAC Brief Case Analysis Currently, teachers of California are considered government workers and have to pay union dues, according to the law, as a condition of employment. “This arrangement was established under the 1977 Supreme Court case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education” (Kovacs, 2015, para. 2). The purpose of the lawsuit is to bring back the right to choose and eliminate paying union dues by force that can benefit organizations teachers do not support. The teachers are being represented by Center for Individual Rights and are challenging laws in relation to agency fees under freedom of speech and association grounds. Issue: Was the right to choose and eliminate paying union dues reestablished? Rule: “Typically, California teacher union dues cost upwards of a $1000 per year. Although California law allows teachers to opt-out of the thirty percent or so of their dues devoted to overt political lobbying, they may not opt out of the sixty to seventy percent of their dues the union determines in devoted to collective bargaining. Requiring teachers to pay these “agency fees” assumes that collective bargaining is non political” (Kovacs, 2015, para. 4). Analysis:” “agency fees” laws, which require government workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment in order to negotiate political...

Words: 792 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Eilers V Coy Brief

...Eilers v Coy Brief 1) Title and Citation: Eilers v Coy 582 F. Supp. 1093 (Minn. 1984) 2) Identity of the Parties: Plaintiff- Williams Eilers (24 year old male) a. Defendants- Plaintiff’s parents, relatives, and deprogrammers 3) Procedural History: Plaintiff accused defendants of false imprisonment and the violation of his civil rights during the attempt deprogramming. Plaintiff motioned for directed verdict. Motion for directed verdict granted. 4) Facts: Family claims in a letter dated 08/16/82 the plaintiff allegedly threatened to commit suicide. On 07/26/82 Joyce Peterson (psychiatric social worker) interviewed the plaintiff and reported to the parents of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was not a threat to himself or others. On Monday 08/16/82 Plaintiff and wife abducted from a clinic in Winona Minnesota by their parents to deprogram them from the religious group Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. Plaintiff held against his will at Tau Center, restrained, and monitored by hired security. Instructions were given to not allow the plaintiff to leave the facility. After several days of resistance plaintiff appeared to consent. On Saturday 8/21/82 during transport to Iowa City, Iowa for further deprogramming the plaintiff escaped out the moving vehicle, and was subsequently helped by civilians who summoned police. 5) Issue: The claim of false imprisonment and violation of plaintiff’s civil rights during attempted deprogramming. Is the application...

Words: 368 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Miranda vs Arizona

...Facts In March 1963, Ernesto Miranda, of Phoenix, Arizona, was arrested in connection with the rape and kidnapping of women. While in custody and after 2 hours of interrogation, he confessed of robbery and attempted rape. His confession and the testimony of the victim were used in the trial. The judge of the Superior Court allowed the confession was used and Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison Miranda appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court; His lawyer argues that his confession should not be used in court because he had not been informed of their rights. Arizona Supreme Court rejected his appeal and upheld his conviction. Miranda then petitioned for the case to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. Intimidation deprives suspects of their basic freedom and may lead to false confessions. The defendant's right to a lawyer is during interrogation allows the offender to tell their story without fear, effectively, and in a way that all his rights will be protected. Issue: Legal issue The issue of this case is if the government is required to notify the accused detainees of their constitutional rights of the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination before questioning the accused. The government has to notify detainees of their constitutional rights of the Fifth Amendment. The Amendment explain “the right to remain silent, it just mean all that they confess could be used against them in court, his right to counsel and their right......

Words: 510 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Miranda V. Arizona

... Miranda V. Arizona (1966) No. 759 In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of a 18 year old female although he confessed under police interrogation, he was never informed of his right to remain silent. Miranda was eventually convicted but appealed to the Supreme Court in 1966 claiming his confession was unconstitutional. In the case the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether or not law officials must inform a defendant of his or her rights prior to investigation. The court reviewed three other cases, in Vignera V. New York, Westover V. United States, and California V. Stewart in all these cases suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, and prosecuting attorneys in rooms that where cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation. The case was argued between the days of Feb 28, Mar 1, & 2 (1966) on June 13, 1966 under Chief Justice Earl Warren who had presided over the landmark Brown V. Board of Education (1954). In a 5-4 decision the court overturned Miranda’s conviction because Miranda was not explicitly informed of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution thus to protect these rights in the face of widespread ignorance of the law the court devised statements that the police are required to tell a defendant who is being detained and interrogated. The mandatory Miranda Rights begin with”......

Words: 498 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

United States V. Arizona

...United States v. Arizona: The Support Our Law Enforcement and Neighborhoods Act is Preempted and Discriminatory Melissa Goolsarran Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Perspective: Immigration, Discrimination, and Limitations on State Laws 3 III. Background: United States v. Arizona 9 A. S.B. 1070 and the Legislature’s Justification 10 B. The Decision: United States v. Arizona 18 IV. Analysis: S.B. 1070 is Preempted by Federal Immigration Law and Also Discriminatory 23 A. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Correctly found that S.B. 1070 is Preempted Because it Interferes with the Administration and Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws 24 B. S.B. 1070 Discriminates on the Basis of Race or National Origin 32 V. Comment and Conclusion: Effects of the Arizona Law 36 I. Introduction The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (“S.B. 1070”) has been the subject of many debates for both its potential impact on federal immigration laws and discrimination against citizens and legal residents of Hispanic origin. The Arizona State Legislature passed S.B. 1070 to reduce the continuous rise in the number of illegal immigrants and alleged consequent rise in crime rates in the state. Among other provisions, the law requires officers to check a person's immigration status, criminalizes an alien’s failure to comply with federal registration laws and working without authorization, and authorizes warrantless arrests where there is probable cause...

Words: 14328 - Pages: 58