PLS 460 Criminal Rights Notes Final

PLS 460 Criminal Rights Notes Final - Right to Counsel...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Right to Counsel Escobedo v Illinois 378 U.S. 478 Miranda v Arizona 385 U.S. 436 (1966) The Court went substantially further than Escobedo and required that a lawyer be made available at that point to suspects who could not afford one. The Miranda ruling also contained specific requirements governing pretrial questioning including standards imposing necessary warnings that the defendant must receive, ground rules for the conduct of interrogation, provision for the appointment of counsel in case of indigence, and understandings pertaining to the defendant’s waiver of rights. The court sought to transform the prevailing inquisitorial operation of the criminal justice process to fit the adversary model commanded by the Sixth Amendment. 5 Th Amendment is relevant because of self-incrimination, because that is essentially what the questioning is trying to do. New York v Quarles 467 U.S. 649 (1984) A police officer pursued respondent suspect in a supermarket after a woman identified him as the man who raped her. The officer frisked respondent and discovered that he was wearing an empty shoulder holster. After handcuffing respondent, the officer asked him where the gun was. Respondent said, "the gun is over there." After the officer retrieved the loaded gun, he placed respondent under arrest and read him his Miranda rights. In the subsequent prosecution of respondent for criminal possession of a weapon, the judge excluded the statement and the gun because the officer had not given respondent his Miranda warnings before asking him where the gun was located. The state appellate courts affirmed, rejecting petitioner State's argument that the exigencies of the situation justified the officer's failure to read respondent his Miranda rights until after he had located the gun. The Court reversed. The Court held that there was a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers could be admitted into evidence, and that the availability of that exception did not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Rehnquist Exception The first is that a search of a person may be made during a lawful arrest. The second is that a search may be made of the area within the control of the arrestee. Minnesota v Murphy 465 U.S. 420 (1984) Respondent made incriminating admissions to his probation officer about other crimes. The information was turned over to police and respondent was indicted for murder. Respondent sought to suppress his confession on the ground that it was obtained in violation of U.S. Const. amend. V and amend. XIV. The state appellate court agreed with respondent and concluded that respondent's failure to claim the privilege when questioned was not fatal to his claim because of the compulsory nature of the meeting, because respondent was required to respond truthfully to the probation officer's questions, and because the officer had reason to believe that respondent's answers were likely to be incriminating. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed based on its conclusion that because respondent
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 13

PLS 460 Criminal Rights Notes Final - Right to Counsel...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online