William Bratton is taking over the helm of the NYPD, what should be his top priority?
Has Miranda v. Arizona adversely affected criminal justice and public safety? Miranda has resulted in the inability to clear a quarter-million homicides, 1 million rapes, 5 million robberies, and 9 million aggravated assaults.
Whenever you see or hear a suspect doing or saying something an innocent person would not, your observations should go into your reports. The suspect's selective silence can sometimes indicate a consciousness of guilt.
Miranda warnings should not be given when they aren't legally necessary such as when information is urgently needed to protect the safety of officers or the public, or to rescue a victim.
Officers on the job before 1966 knew that the right to remain silent was guaranteed by the Constitution, but no officer from that era ever thought it was his job to remind offenders of their rights. That changed with the arrest of Ernesto Miranda in March 1963 and the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that followed.
In March of 1963, Phoenix Police Officer Carroll Cooley arrested Ernesto Miranda. Fifty years later, Miranda warnings are as much a part of policing today as a set of handcuffs. Cooley, a retired captain, talked with POLICE Magazine about the historic arrest. Read the full story here.
Once a custodial suspect has been given Miranda warnings and has acknowledged his understanding, he might waive his rights and submit to questioning, or he might invoke—either by indicating that he doesn't want to talk, or by requesting counsel.
It sometimes happens that a suspect's lawyer offers to surrender him for arrest and agrees to let his or her client be questioned, provided the lawyer is present during the interrogation.
Of the 55 subsequent Supreme Court opinions on Miranda issues, 14 have involved attempts to clarify the meaning of "custody," and in 12 of those 14, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of state and federal appellate courts, which got it wrong.