Devallis Rutledge (213) 257-2937 drutledge@da.lacounty.gov ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGES FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES plus 4TH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RULES.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 6 Interrogations and Confessions Grounds for excluding confession – not admissible if it is product of police violation of any of following requirements.
Advertisements

Interrogations and Confessions
Criminal Evidence 6th Edition
CJ305: Legal Foundations of Criminal Evidence Welcome to Unit 6! Instructor: K. Austin Zimmer, J.D. Make sure you adjust your speakers and audio settings.
Miranda Warning Law Enforcement I.
Chapter Five Interrogation & Identification Procedures All Images © Microsoft Corporation Written by Karmel Tanner May 2010.
Chapter Eleven – Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona Rolando V. del Carmen.
ADMISSIONS & CONFESSIONS FOR STREET OFFICERS Portland – October 24, 2013 Bangor – October 30,
AJ 104 Chapter 14 Self-Incrimination.
Fifth and Sixth Amendment
Vivek Barbhaiya and John Coriasco
Miranda Rights 5th Amendment
Miranda v. Arizona.
Chapter Eleven – Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona
Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional 11 th Edition John N. Ferdico Henry F. Fradella Christopher Totten Prepared by Tony Wolusky Interrogations,
■Essential Question ■Essential Question: –How did the decisions of the Supreme Court impact civil liberties in the 1960s & 1970s? ■Warm-Up Question: –?
Chapter 9 The Exclusionary Rule.
Cases and Terms – Chapter 8 – Rights of the Accused Module 8 Amendments 4 -7.
CIVIL LIBERTIES. THE POLITICS OF CIVIL LIBERTIES Civil liberties: protections the Constitution provides individuals against the abuse of government power.
Miranda v. Arizona A Primer. Miranda Background Dealt with the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation under the Fifth Amendment's.
Civil Liberties. The Politics of Civil Liberties Civil liberties: protections the Constitution provides against the abuse of government power State ratifying.
The 4th & 5th Amendments Search & Seizure Search & Seizure Rights Against Self Incrimination Rights Against Self Incrimination.
1 Chapter 12 Obtaining Statements and Confessions for use as Evidence Obtaining Statements and Confessions for use as Evidence.
Miranda v. Arizona. Facts of the Case Police arrest Ernesto Miranda after the victim identifies him in lineup Police interrogate Miranda for two hours.
Irwin/McGraw-Hill © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000 Irwin/McGraw-Hill © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000 Chapter 7 The Rule of Law in Law Enforcement.
Introduction to Constitutional Law Unit 4. CJ140-02A – Introduction to Constitutional Law Unit 4: The Fourth Amendment CJ140-02A– Class 4 Part 1.
Unit The Bill of Rights n First ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. n Purpose is to prevent government from usurping the personal freedom of.
Chapter 2 Legal Aspects of Investigation © 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. LEARNING OBJECTIVES Explain the historical evolution.
MIRANDA AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Chapter 1 The Pursuit of Justice Unit #1 Notes Packet.
Chapter Fifteen Criminal Procedure Before Trial. Introduction to Law, 4 th Edition Hames and Ekern © 2010 Pearson Higher Education, Upper Saddle River,
Rights of the Accused Search & Seizure Search & Seizure Right Against Self Incrimination Right Against Self Incrimination Right to Counsel Right to Counsel.
Crime and Due Process. There is always a question as to how we should deal with “improper evidence” in the courtroom; different nations approach the question.
1 Bakersfield College Criminal Justice Charles Feer, JD, MPA Miranda.
In United States v. Lopez (1995), a federal law mandating a “gun free zone" on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court.
Miranda v Arizona Rights of the Accused. Citations 384 U.S. 436 (1966) oDocket # 759 oArgued February 28, 1966 o Decider June 13, 1966.
Police and the Constitution: The Rules of Law Enforcement.
SELF-INCRIMINATION “No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[.]” The 5 th Amendment “I plead the Fifth!”
The Investigation.  Right to remain silent  Right to an attorney  No interrogation should take place before they read  Are a result of the US Supreme.
Investigative Constitutional Law Charles L. Feer, JD, MPA Bakersfield College Department of Criminal Justice Investigative Constitutional Law.
 Online Miranda quiz Online Miranda quiz. The constitutional implications of custodial interrogation.
Land Mark Supreme Court Cases Assignment
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS: THE INVESTIGATION Chapter 12.
Miranda: Its Meaning and Application Chapter 6 Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle.
Unit 4 Seminar. Tell me what the Miranda warning is and what it means to you.
CLASS NO. 19 REVIEW. Miranda Rule Before there is “custodial interrogation,” the defendant must be warned of his Miranda rights: –Right to remain silent.
Know Your Rights Santa Teresa High School Intro to LPSCS.
Understanding the Constitution
Civil Liberties.
Miranda v. Arizona.
Miranda Warning Law Enforcement I.
Supreme Court briefs.
Devallis Rutledge (213) ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGES FOURTH AMENDMENT Developments, Trends & Forecast Devallis Rutledge.
The University of Adelaide, School of Computer Science
Amendments in ACTION: The Fifth Amendment
Miranda Warnings.
Civil Liberties.
Criminal Justice U.S. Constitution Unit Hermitage Tech Center
Pre-trial arrest and custody
Miranda v. Arizona 1966.
The Investigation Chapter 12
Ch. 3-2 The Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent
Chapter 9 The Exclusionary Rule.
Interrogations and Confessions
Criminal Procedure: Theory and Practice, 2d.
Miranda Rights You have the right to remain silent…
Amendments in ACTION: The Fifth Amendment
Amendments in ACTION: The Fifth Amendment
Ap u.s. government & politics
Miranda v. Arizona Matthew & Noah.
Presentation transcript:

Devallis Rutledge (213) 257-2937 drutledge@da.lacounty.gov ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGES FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES plus 4TH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RULES Devallis Rutledge (213) 257-2937 drutledge@da.lacounty.gov

4 exclusionary rules for confession evidence 4th Amendment—Wong Sun 5th Amendment—Miranda 6th Amendment—Massiah 14th Amendment—Brown

Miranda v. arizona Miranda compliance is a prerequisite to the admissibility of a statement obtained through custodial police interrogation.

Mcneil v. wisconsin "We have in fact never held that a person can invoke his Miranda rights anticipatorily, in a context other than custodial interrogation."

Kirby v. illinois Miranda was based exclusively on the Fifth Amendment.

Us v. mandujano Miranda secures a Fifth Amendment privilege. The Sixth Amendment is not implicated by Miranda.

Moran v. burbine “The holding of Miranda rested exclusively on the Fifth Amendment.”

The United States Supreme Court articulated the Miranda admonitions in 1966 as a prophylactic measure to protect the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of those interrogated by agents of the government." The United States Supreme Court articulated the Miranda admonitions in 1966 as a prophylactic measure to protect the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of those interrogated by agents of the government." People v. castile “The United States Supreme Court articulated the Miranda admonitions in 1966 as a prophylactic measure to protect the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of those interrogated by agents of the government.”

people v. riva “The question is whether the defendant waived his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights as delineated in Miranda.”

vasquez-trujillo v. gonzales “Those Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights outlined in Miranda….”

California v. beheler “Custody” means… “…formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.”

“Not free to leave?” The “not-free-to-leave” test… “…identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.” --Howes v. Fields

Implied waiver “…after giving a Miranda warning, police may interrogate a suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his or her Miranda rights.” --Berghuis v. Thompkins

Michigan v. tucker “…the Miranda rules were not themselves rights protected by the Constitution.”

Moran v. burbine Miranda’s objective… “…is not to mold police conduct for its own sake.”

“The Miranda rule is not a code of police conduct.” Us v. patane “The Miranda rule is not a code of police conduct.”

Chavez v. martinez “Violations of judicially crafted prophylactic rules do not violate the constitutional rights of any person.”

People v. Nguyen Moran v. Burbine “Miranda imposed an affirmative duty on interrogating officers to cease questioning once a suspect invokes the right to counsel.’ “Nothing in the Constitution vests in us the authority to mandate a code of behavior for state officers.”

“The Miranda rule is not a code of police conduct.” People v. Nguyen Moran v. Burbine “It is indeed misconduct to interrogate a suspect in custody who has invoked his right to counsel.” “The Miranda rule is not a code of police conduct.”

People v. Nguyen US v. Patane “Nothing in Peavey was meant to condone deliberately improper interrogation tactics.” “It is not for this court to impose its preferred police practices on law enforcement officials.”

People v. Nguyen US v. Patane “A statement obtained in violation of Miranda is a statement obtained illegally.” “Police do not violate a suspect’s constitutional rights (or the Miranda rule)” by asking questions.

US Const., Art. Vi, CLAUSE 2: “This Constitution … shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby.”

US v. washington “Far from being prohibited by the Constitution, admissions of guilt by wrongdoers, if not coerced, are inherently desirable.”

Devallis Rutledge (213) 257-2937 drutledge@da.lacounty.gov ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGES fifth AMENDMENT issues plus 4th, 6th and 14th amendment rules Devallis Rutledge (213) 257-2937 drutledge@da.lacounty.gov