Yahoo Web Search

  1. About 41 search results

  1. Jan 24, 2021 · Miranda v. Arizona was a significant Supreme Court case that ruled that a defendant's statements to authorities are inadmissible in court unless the defendant has been informed of their right to have an attorney present during questioning and an understanding that anything they say will be held against them. In addition, for a statement to be ...

  2. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricts prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney ...

  3. Miranda v. Arizona, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 13, 1966, established a code of conduct for police interrogations of criminal suspects held in custody. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for a 5–4 majority, held that prosecutors may not use statements made by suspects under questioning in police custody unless certain minimum procedural safeguards were followed. He ...

  4. U.S. Supreme Court Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) Edwards v. Arizona. No. 79-5269. Argued November 5, 1980. Decided May 18, 1981. 451 U.S. 477. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA Syllabus. After being arrested on a state criminal charge, and after being informed of his rights as required by Miranda v.

  5. ARIZONA V. GANT 556 U. S. ____ (2009) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO. 07-542. ARIZONA, PETITIONER v. RODNEY JOSEPH GANT. on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of arizona [April 21, 2009] Justice Alito, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy join, and with whom Justice Breyer joins except as to Part II–E, dissenting.

  6. Nov 09, 2009 · Miranda rights are the rights given to people in the United States upon arrest. ... warning and they stem from a 1966 Supreme Court case: Miranda v. Arizona. ... Miranda vs. Arizona case argued at ...

  7. Nov 19, 2019 · Terry v. Ohio was a landmark case because the Supreme Court ruled that officers could conduct investigatory searches for weapons based on reasonable suspicions. Stop-and-frisk had always been a police practice, but validation from the Supreme Court meant that the practice became more widely accepted. In 2009, the Supreme Court cited Terry v.

  1. People also search for