This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: O bje c t 1 Almost thirty years later, the US Supreme Court married the 5th and 6th amendments in Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Miranda is a "bright line" rule (beyond which nobody should cross) intended to forever extinguish the use of COERCION but allowing PRESSURE. The purpose of Miranda is to neutralize the distinct psychological disadvantage that suspects are under when dealing with police. In order to truly understand Miranda, it is important to note that: CUSTODY + INTERROGATION = MIRANDA Warnings are required only before custodial interrogation. What is custody? The Miranda court equated custody with being "deprived of...freedom in any significant way. A General Rule for determining custody: Custody occurs whenever a suspect is placed in " unfamiliar and hostile surroundings ". The US Supreme Court began its interpretation of Miranda Rights and how they apply to juveniles in the case Fare v. Michael C. In this 1979 case, the court was charged with considering the scope of 5th amendment protections of juveniles by determining if a 14 year old murder and robbery suspect meant to waive his Miranda rights when he agreed to talk without a lawyer, but requested to speak with his probation officer. The Court ruled that requesting to speak with a probation officer did not invoke the Miranda privilege against self-incrimination or constitute the functional equivalent of a request to consult with counsel, either of which would have required police to cease questioning. Furthermore, the Court rejected the counsel, either of which would have required police to cease questioning....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 08/08/2010 for the course COR 856 taught by Professor Dr.kevinminor during the Fall '08 term at E. Kentucky.
- Fall '08