Search results
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) The Supreme Court held that the custodial interrogation of an individual must be accompanied by an instruction that the person has the right to remain silent, any statements made can be used against the person, and that the individual has the right to counsel, either retained or appointed ...
Jun 4, 2019 · In Rhode Island v. Innis (1980), the Supreme Court created the "functionally equivalent" standard for determining when police officers are interrogating a suspect. The Court ruled that an interrogation is not limited to direct questioning, but instead covers any actions that can be reasonably understood as coercive.
Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)—the court case from which the rights and warning take their name—was the first in a group of four consolidated cases addressed by the Supreme Court that all concerned individuals being interrogated for a length of time without being informed of their rights. The Court ruled that Ernesto Miranda ...
Mar 5, 2024 · Citation: Miranda v Arizona 384 U.S. 436; 16 L. Ed. 2d 694; 86 S. Ct. 1602. Translation: Case name Miranda v. Arizona found in volume 384 of the United States Reports, page 436. with Parallel Citations - 16 L. Ed. 2d 694; 86 S. Ct. 1602. Translation: volume 16 of the United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyer's Edition, 2nd series, page 694 ...
Dec 22, 2009 · Gordon Ringer, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitioner in No. 584. With him on the briefs were Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, and William E. James, Assistant Attorney General. Gary K. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General of Arizona, argued the cause for respondent in No. 759.
Arizona (1966) Miranda v. Arizona is the Supreme Court case where it was held that the custodial interrogation of an individual must be accompanied by an instruction that the person has the right to remain silent, any statements made can be used against the person, and that the individual has the right to counsel, either retained or appointed.
Nov 9, 2009 · In a 6-3 ruling on June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court said that law enforcement officers may not be sued for damages under federal civil rights law for failing to issue the Miranda Warning to suspects.
