The Miranda warning is also referred to as the Miranda rights in the United States. Miranda warning is a silent warning issued by the police to criminal suspects under police detention. Miranda warning can still be issued by the police to criminals who are under interrogation while in the custody. The interrogation is done to preserve the admissibility of the statement which is to be used against them in criminal case. Within the requirements set by the United State states that prior to the arrest of a suspect, the suspect must be told that he/she has the right to be silent, right to legal counsel. The suspect has the right to be told that anything he/she says can be used against the suspect in the case. If the suspect confesses to the police, then prosecution has to prove to the judge that the accused was informed of his rights and violated his rights knowingly; all these should be done before the confession is introduced to the defendant’s trial (FindLaw, 2016).
From the incident, the suspect’s rights are violated by the police officers who failed to tell share on Miranda warning. The officer should have told him that the information he is giving voluntarily will be used in court against him. Another right that he was denied is access to legal counsel and the right to keep silent. In this case, the police did not follow any rule within Miranda. After the suspect is arrested and taken to the police station, the police officer was to read out the Miranda rules to the defendant but instead, he is interrogated and confesses his acts. This is a violation of the defendant’s rights (Prentzas, 2006, p. 12).
In this case, the matter is in line with theMissouri v. Seibertcase where the suspect is only with the Miranda warnings after being arrested. In this case I do not agree with the court’s admissibility of statements made by the suspect because the police officers failed to serve the suspect with the Miranda rule before being arrested. In this case, the suspect is onlyservedwith the Miranda rules shortly before interrogation while in police custody, the confession are later used against the suspect in the case.
The suspect makes his confessions before and after being served with the Miranda rules. The court should not admit the confessions since the suspect was not served with the Miranda rules before he is arrested. As a police officer, the Miranda warning has a big impact on my decisions. If a suspect who has been served with the Miranda rules denies it before a court, it sets a blow to the interrogation officer and the process too (Ruschmann, 2007, p. 8-19).
References
FindLaw. (2016). “Miranda” Rights and the Fifth Amendment – FindLaw. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/miranda-rights-and-the-fifth-amendment.html
Prentzas, G. S. (2006). Miranda rights: Protecting the rights of the accused. New York, NY: Rosen Pub. Group.
Ruschmann, P. (2007). Miranda rights. New York: Chelsea House.