Call To Order Complete the following statement: You have the right to remain silent… And take out your homework!!!

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Discussion Questions Does this violate any of our rights? Do you think this type of interrogation should be allowed? What changes would you make to the interrogation process?

1) Landmark Case: “Miranda vs. Arizona”

2) Landmark Case: “Miranda vs. Arizona” Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant who lived in Arizona in He was arrested after a woman identified him in a police lineup.

3) Landmark Case: “Miranda vs. Arizona” Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping Police asked him questions about the crime for two hours.

4)Landmark Case: “Miranda vs. Arizona” In the United States, people who are accused of crimes have certain constitutional rights 5 th Amendment- says they have the right to be silent 6 th Amendment- says they have the right to a lawyer to help defend themselves

5) Landmark Case: “Miranda vs. Arizona” The police did not tell Miranda that he had these rights when they arrested him. After the police were finished asking Miranda questions, he signed a confession, which also stated that he acknowledged his rights.

6) Landmark Case: “Miranda vs. Arizona” The police used his confession in the trial and Miranda was convicted of the crime. The judge decided he should serve 20 to 30 years in prison for each crime.

7) Landmark Case: “Miranda vs. Arizona” Miranda appealed his case to the highest court in Arizona. His attorney argued the confession should not have been used as evidence because;  Miranda had not been informed of his rights,  and no attorney had been present to assist him during his interrogation.

8) Landmark Case: “Miranda vs. Arizona” The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld Miranda's conviction. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Miranda's case. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona was handed down in 1966.

9) Supreme Court rules in favor of Miranda; his conviction is overturned Supreme Court said: Miranda was NOT read his rights by the officers No attorney (lawyer) was present while he was being interrogated (questioned) by police because Miranda was never told he had the right to a lawyer

10. Miranda vs. Arizona ruling led to Miranda Rights Police officers have to read Miranda rights out loud to anyone being arrested and/or interrogated (questioned by police)

Interrogation (questioning) Room

Take out “Do Cartman’s actions violate any amendments” Police officer, Eric Cartman, is in hot pursuit of Southpark community member Randy Marsh Officer Cartman pulls Randy over and shows his police i.d. Without telling Randy what he has done illegally, Cartman goes ahead and orders Randy to get out of the car. Randy questions why he is pulled over but Cartman responds by saying; “Hey! Hey! You will shutup and respect my AUTHORITY!” Randy continues his questioning so officer Cartman responds by pulling out his handcuffs and arresting Randy. Randy is cuffed and thrown in the back of Cartman’s big wheel.

11) Due Process 5 th Amendment Miranda Rights Next Class (introduced tomorrow)

OPINION – YOU DIDN’T REMAIN SILENT...NOW WHAT? Benny was arrested by New York Police and charged with the armed robbery of a taxicab driver. While he was in jail waiting for his trial, a New York undercover officer was placed in Benny’s cell. Before the officer asked any questions, Benny said that he had robbed the cab driver. Benny’s statement was used against him at trial, despite his objection that he was not read his Miranda Rights, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The judge should admit the confession into court as evidence against Benny. Strongly Agree Undecided Strongly Disagree