1. Cole Kirschner, Paige Haney, Kelsey Hickle
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Cole Kirschner, Paige Haney, Kelsey Hickle

2. Constitutional Issue
Ernesto Miranda was arrested and interrogated for two hours without being informed of his rights, this led to Miranda making a confession.

3. Parties Involved
Ernesto MIranda, The Police, and the Supreme Court

4. When and Where
This took place in Arizona in the year 1966.

5. Events leading up
Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the police, but was not informed of any of his rights including having an attorney present. The police interrogated him for 2 hours and were able to get a written confession for crimes the police had recorded.

6. Historical context
The 60’s were the beginning of the counterculture emergence (Hippies), This case was one of the stepping stones for people to have rights against the Police.

7. Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that before someone is taken into custody they must be informed of their rights (MIranda Rights). The Court also ruled that no statement made by Miranda could've been by his free choice.

8. Reasoning
The Supreme Court believed that since Miranda was not informed of his Rights no statement made by him would be viable.

9. Opposing Viewpoints
This was the first case that addressed Police not stating the person’s Rights. Thousands of cases across the country were closed off of People not knowing their Rights.

10. Opinion on Ruling
We feel the Supreme Court ruling was just because without Miranda knowing his rights he was led to say things that may not of been true and so that led to an unfair trial.

11. Impact of case
The impact of this case caused the making of the Miranda Rights. These Rights are to be said at every arrest so the people know their situation.