Main Post: Miranda Warnings and the Fifth Amendment

This week we're looking at the Fifth Amendment and Miranda rights. The Fifth Amendment says people don't have to say anything that could get them in trouble with the law. The Miranda v. Arizona case made it clear that when someone is in police custody, they have to be told about their right to stay silent and get a lawyer before being questioned. Here's how I see it with the three scenarios:

Scenario 1 - Bruce

Bruce was already arrested and on the way to the station when two officers started talking to each other about how sad the girl's death was. Bruce overheard them, got emotional, and admitted to the crime. Even though Bruce hadn't been read his rights yet, the police didn't actually ask him any questions. Since he confessed on his own without being directly questioned, I don't think this breaks his Fifth Amendment rights. Courts have said that if a person confesses without being pushed or questioned, it can still be used (Rhode Island v. Innis, 1980).

Scenario 2 - Karen

Karen went to the station voluntarily and was questioned about some break-ins. She admitted to them during questioning, but the police didn't give her Miranda warnings. The big question is whether she was in custody or not. If she felt like she couldn't leave, it might count as being in custody. In that case, Miranda warnings should have been given. If the court decides she was effectively in custody, then what she said might not be allowed in court.

Scenario 3 - Walter

Walter was arrested and told police he wanted to stay silent after hearing his Miranda rights. A few hours later, another officer started asking him about a different robbery, and Walter confessed even though he had already said he didn't want to talk. Even though the second officer gave him new Miranda warnings, they shouldn't have questioned him again so soon. Once someone says they don't want to talk, the police have to respect that. His confession could be thrown out because they didn't follow his rights (Michigan v. Mosley, 1975).

State Case Example: Florida v. Powell

In Florida v. Powell (2010), the issue was whether the Miranda warning given was clear enough. The Florida Supreme Court said it wasn't, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and said the warning still got the point across. The court said that officers don't need to say the exact same words every time as long as the person understands their rights, it's okay. This case shows that how the warning is explained really matters.

Final Thoughts

Miranda warnings are important because they protect people from saying things that might hurt them later in court. Each of these scenarios shows different results depending on whether the person was in custody, questioned, or asked to stay silent. If the police don't follow the rules, confessions can be thrown out. Officers need to be careful and do things the right way to make sure the evidence they get is legal.

References

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980). Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975). Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (2010).

thank your classmate for his post and reply with an additional input on his final thoughts from a scholarly source using APA in-text citation in one paragraph