Miranda v. Arizona

Concurring Opinion(s)

Chief Justice Earl Warren Announced that the opinion of the 5-4 majority concluded that the defendant's interrogation violated the Fifth Amendment.

Constitutional Question

Does the Fifth Amendment's Protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

Precedents

In 1966 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects and there were police questioning and must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.

Significance of the Case

In 1966 Miranda v. Arizona (1996) the Court held that if the police did not inform people they arrest certain types of constitutional rights and also including their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Activism vs. Restraint

It is an example of Judicial Activism because the Fifth Amendment clearly stated the course of action necessary in order to avoid future problems with the acquiring of evidence and statements from those who were arrested.

Majority Opinion

It was written by Chief Justice Warren joined by Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas

Dissenting Opinion(s)

It was written by Justice Harlan and joined by Justices Stewart and White

Facts of the Case

The Case of Miranda v. Arizona included four different kinds of cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of different cases the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world But none of these cases were defendant during the interrogation process.

Lower Courts' Decision

The district level happen that Miranda was charge of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count.After that the appellate level of Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not contravene.