In re: Miranda v. State of Arizona
FACTS
The Miranda case arose from a police interrogation of a mentally disabled Mexican national.. Miranda was brought in for questioning about a series of kidnappings and rapes that had occurred.
He was taken to an interrogation room.
He was not informed of his right to protect himself against self-incrimination.
He was not informed that he had the right to have an attorney present.
He was not told that if he could not afford an attorney, one would be provided for him.
Two hours after interrogation began, police officers emerged with a confession.
At trial, based on the credence of the police, the admission was entered into evidence.
When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, it was one of four similar cases that were taken up at the same time. Of the four cases, three had emerged with signed written confessions to the crimes, and one had ended up with an oral confession.
RULE
For the most part, prior to Miranda, police were routinely given the benefit of the doubt when it came to confessions being entered into evidence. Constitutional protections did bubble up from lower courts, but law enforcement was given broad authority with little judicial oversight.
ANALYSIS
As far back as 1897, in Brown v United States, 168 U.S. 532, 542, 18 S.CT. 183, 187, the court had had to wrestle with the needs of law enforcement versus the rights of defendants.
In the seven decades between Brown and Miranda, the high court had ruled on several matters relating to fourth amendment issues of illegal search and seizure. But it was presumed that society knew its rights, and therefore it was not necessary for officers to inform those they questioned that there were protections available to them.
With Miranda, the court was faced with a respondent who was mentally challenged, someone who was a foreign national, someone who may have had a limited grasp of the English language.
Respondent was taken to an interrogation room, faced with only police officers, with no one to defend him. After only two hours, officers had their confession.
This case shattered the illusion that everyone knew, or should have known, their constitutional protections. If this respondent could be coerced into a confession, with no one to contradict the presumption of police infallibility, then who was truly protected?
One by one, the Warren Court examined the rights given by our Constitution. And one by one, the high court sought to clarify just what those rights were, and what the corresponding responsibilities were for the law enforcement bodies sworn to protect us.
It was argued in Justice Harlan’s dissent from this decision, and is being strenuously argued today, that the Miranda Warning was not, and is not now, truly a necessary part of police procedures. But as has been shown in numerous cases over the past years, abuses of authority still continue. As long as they exist, so should the warnings afforded by Miranda.
Even in a world with the internet, with globally-syndicated American programs, there are those who don’t always know what their rights are, despiteprotestations from certain political quarters.
