Question

The Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that _____.

Answer 1

The Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.

Further Explanations:

Ruling of the Miranda versus Arizona stated that the detained suspect must be informed about their constitutional rights before they are being questioned or arrested. As per the ruling,the 5th Amendment act prevents prosecutors from using suspect’sstatement made at the time of interrogation or in custody. It is their legal right to refer an attorney afore being questioned.

Miranda's case was regarded as a radical change in the American Criminal law as it changed the extended the significance of the Fifth Amendment. As earlier, it was expected that the act protects the citizens against compulsion to confess and contempt of court but after the ruling, it also added that the act informs citizens about their rights. The ruling led to a significant impact of the America’s Law enforcement that also became the routine procedure of police. This procedure was also called Miranda warning that was the oral notifications give to the arrested person in the custody.

Learn more

1. The impact of Furman v. Georgia (1972) was that states had to promise to use the death penalty only with approval from the Supreme Court. Throw out the old Miranda warning and write a new one. Agree to throw out all state laws regarding crime and impose national standards. Create clear Miranda to be applied Georgia before imposing the death penalty?brainly.com/question/637963

2. What was the charge of the 1807 indictment by the man who was chosen as vice president on February 17, 1801, by the House of Representatives after thirty-six ballots? brainly.com/question/8775340

3. How did henry ford’s model t contribute to the culture of the roaring twenties? brainly.com/question/7802830

Answer Details  

Grade: High School

Subject: History

Chapter: Miranda versus Arizona

Keywords: Miranda versus Arizona,Miranda versus Arizona, the 5th Amendment, suspect’s statement, interrogation, custody, legal right, American Criminal law, Fifth Amendment, Law enforcement, Miranda warning,custody

Answer 2

The answer is: that evidence seized illegally cannot be used in a criminal trial.

The Miranda rights (  also known as Miranda warning ) is an oral notification given to a person in police custody. That person is usually accused of committing a crime or criminal offence.

The accused is given the right to remain silent, meaning they can refuse to answer any questions or give information to law enforcement officials. They also have the right to have an attorney present during their interrogation. If they can not afford one, the court will appoint an attorney for them.

The Miranda warning is only given if the individual in question is about to be interrogated, and not if arrested only.

This warning was established as part of the Fifth Amendment right against  self incrimination. Any evidence obtained from an accused person without them being given the Miranda rights can not be used as evidence in court.

Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966. It ruled that statements made by the defendant in an interrogation would only be admissible at trial if the individual was aware of his rights ( silence, attorney ), and that the individual understood the rights and voluntarily agreed to them.