Miranda v. Arizona and How the Miranda Rule Affects Law Enforcement Procedures

Miranda V. Arizona
Student’s name
Institution affiliation
Course
Instructor
Date
Miranda V. Arizona
In Miranda V. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that before police interrogation, the suspect was to be made aware of their constitutional rights. Miranda was apprehended in 1963 at his residence and drawn to a police station where a witness recognized him. He was interrogated in the police station and signed a written confession presented to the jury. He was found guilty of rape and kidnapping, and he was sentenced to 20-30 years of every count (United States Courts, n.d). After a petition in the Supreme Court, chief justice Earl Warren ruled that the prosecutor not use statements from the suspect unless they were made aware of their rights and guidelines of the constitution. The guidelines involved informing the suspects they had a right to remain silent, that whatever they say can be used as evidence against them, that they have a right to an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney, one can be provided for them. Also, the prosecutor was to stop the interrogation process at any sta...