Read each paragraph and give me your opinion do you agree do you disagree with those 2 paragraphs one for each part and if you agree or disagree why or why not cj
1.As the officer who put the man that his wife in the patrol car, I would have read his Miranda rights as soon as I confirmed that he did in fact hit his wife. I would have advised him that he has the right to remain silent since anything he says can be used against him in the court of law and that he has a right to counsel. Depending on the judge that takes this case is how the outcome would be. Me just reading the scenario alone, the officer and sergeant’s actions would make this inadmissible and a violation of the Miranda Rights. The Miranda warnings state: “The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491.” (Miranda v. Arizona)The Harris v. New York case actually was similar to Oregon v Elstad in the way that the Miranda Rights were not read properly and the confession is inadmissible. Both cases had the same ruling overturning the convictions.I agree with the court’s ruling overturning the conviction in the Harris v. New York case because any officer knows that if they want a confession, the suspect needs to be read his Miranda Rights, no if’s or buts. The Miranda Rights is to support that the suspect receives his rights under the constitutional law and not have been read those rights, the officer violated the Miranda Rights law and also, if the attorney is good, the 4th amendment of civil rights.My decision regarding the Miranda Rights is that I would have to read the Miranda Rights to a suspect if I want a confession in. In the scenario for this discussion, I would have stopped and read the Miranda Rights when I confirmed that the person in the back of my police car was in fact the suspect I was looking and when I asked him if he hit his wife and he answered yes, I would immediately read his Miranda Rights and go to the station. If he waived them then the admission is admissible. If not, then would have his attorney present. I don’t agree with the way the officers in both cases because the officers should have known to read the Miranda Rights and move forward. The case of Oregon v. Elsted, the person interrogating the suspect deliberately got a confession first, read the Miranda Rights and basically had him repeat what he said before. That is a complete violation of the Miranda Rights.
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
2.For this unit I’ve chosen to speak about Salinas v Texas. Genovevo Salinas was a suspect in a double homicide when he was questioned for over an hour about the murders. During the questioning Salinas were not read his Miranda rights. Salinas held back from speaking when investigators asked if the gun shells from the scene would match the gun he had at his residence and for this reason he was eventually charged for the murders and sent to 20 years I prison. He tried to invoke 5th amendment protection and the courts denied that because he should have done it at the beginning of his arrest or the questioning. As a result his confession before and after his Miranda rights were admitted. This case is more so aligned with Oregon v Elstad and Missouri v. Seibert. As with Oregon v. Elstad and Missouri v Seibert, Salinas v. Texas’ evidence was also admitted pre Miranda. I agree with the courts ruling because the defendant willingly went with the officers while he had the choice of not doing so, he also spoke without an attorney and he himself gave out information. Moving forward, Salinas wanting to protect himself 15 years later when he was caught and shield himself under the 5th amendment is not valid. As an officer, no matter how gruesome the scene, I must pay close attention to procedure and not jump the gun with my questioning. I have to make sure I read suspects their Miranda rights given the appropriate situations and suspects.