Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) - Case Study Example

His counsel appealed the case with the Arizona Supreme Court who agreed with a vote of 5-4 that the statements the police acquired from Miranda were not admissible in court because they failed to advise him of his rights as a police detainee (“Miranda V. Arizona (1966)”, n.d.). This decision became the precedent case for Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart which were all cases that were all decided on the basis of what became known as the Miranda Rights.

So named after Ernesto Miranda, whose case became the landmark case that brought the rights of a police detainee to light. Miranda Rights have become part and parcel of proper police arrest procedure ever since the courts sided with Ernesto Miranda on his case. The Miranda Rights are the only set of laws that stand between a forced confession during interrogation (such as the case with Ernesto Miranda) and a properly accessed confession or information from the accused based on proper police procedure (due to the presence of legal counsel who advises the accused of his rights during questioning).

There seems to be some confusion among the public pertaining to the circumstances and situations when a person must be read his Miranda Rights. Simply put, Miranda rights only come into play when police begin to question a suspect in a formal interrogation setting since he is being formally accused of a crime. It does not apply to traffic violations, DUI arrests, and other simple police situations. The Miranda is triggered when you are arrested and asked questions by the police. The police must, by law, inform you of your right to self incrimination and to free legal counsel prior to asking you any questions.

The accused is normally informed of his Miranda Rights as part of this arrest procedure. Before the cuffs go on, the Miranda must be read. Otherwise, anything the accused says under interrogation will be deemed inadmissible in court (“Miranda”, n.d.). The rights of the accused to the protection of the Miranda Rights and the legal counsel afforded them under the Sixth Amendment can be formally waived by the accused once he formally refuses the protection of the law. Although it is not common for the accused to refuse his Miranda Rights, there have been certain instances in arrest / interrogation situations when the accused does exactly that.

However, Miranda Rights are not easily waived. There are actually certain procedures that the accused has to pass through in order to waive these rights. His right to access his Miranda Rights cannot simply be implied by the accused. He must formally invoke his right to counsel and the right to self incrimination in order to be covered by the law. The accused may, at any given time after he is advised of his Miranda Rights, refuse to be covered by the law provided he signs a legal document waiving his right to remain silent, or the right to have legal representation present at his questioning.

This is what is known as an Expressly Waiving Miranda Rights. On the other hand, an Implied Waiver of Miranda Rights may also be undertaken by the accused simply by behaving in such a way that indicates that he has full knowledge of his Miranda Rights and he has chosen to waive them (“Waiving Miranda Rights”, n.d.). The Miranda Law was created by a court of law based upon the United States Constitution and therefore cannot