Records Checks, Surveillance, and Informants Essay

1657 Words7 Pages
Records Checks, Surveillance, and Informants Introduction In 1966, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the rights of suspects in regard to interrogation by police in the case of Miranda v. Arizona. This case has had a dramatic effect on the courts as well as law enforcement in this county ever since. With this in mind, think of the requirements placed on law enforcement and how this case changed the manner in which interviews are conducted between ordinary criminals and Terrorists. (CJ293). Background for the case of Miranda v. Arizona With its decisions in the cases of Mapp v. Ohio, 1961, Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, and Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, the Warren Court handed down the bases of what it called the “fundamentals of fairness” standard. At both the State and federal level, the Court sent clear signal to law enforcement and criminal justice officials. Convictions not made in conformity with the “fairness” standard would likely be overturned. Constitutional guarantees of due process for the accused had to be upheld. (Info, 2000). The court heard a number of similar cases at the same time that it heard Miranda, but since this case was listed first on the docket, we have come to know the Court’s collective judgment by this name. The Miranda decision distilled the several “fundamental fairness” standards into one succinct statement of the due process rights of the accused. . . .(Info, 2000). No. 759. Miranda v. Arizona. On March 13, 1963, petitioner, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a Phoenix police station. He was there identified by the complaining witness. The police then took him to “Interrogation Room No. 2” of the detective bureau. There he was questioned by two police officers. The officers admitted at trial that Miranda was not advised that he had a right to have an attorney present. Two hours later,

More about Records Checks, Surveillance, and Informants Essay

Open Document