Interrogations

**1.) What are the liberties/rights protected by the Fifth Amendment? **
Some of the liberties/rights protected by the 5th Amendment include trial protections such as the right against self-incrimination (held to also apply to custodial interrogations and before most government bodies) as well as the right to only be tried once ("double jeopardy") in federal court for the same offense. The Amendment also has a Due Process Clause (similar to the one in the 14th Amendment), implied equal protection requirement, and also requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with "just compensation" for those whose property is taken.

The 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution directly states that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 d) what impact did this decision have (did it keep things the same; change what could be done; etc)
Escobedo v Illinois:

In 1964, Danny Escobedo was arrested without a warrant and interrogated as a suspect in his brother-in-law’s, Manuel Valtierra, murder. He asked to see his lawyer, but the police refused because they said he was not formally charged yet. When he went to court he challenged his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court overturned his conviction and recognized his 6th Amendment rights. This was also a important movement toward recognizing the 5th Amendment right to not testify against oneself.

Miranda v Arizona:

In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was arrested, taken into custody, and was pointed out by a witness. He was interrogated for 2 hours, but the police did not tell him that he had the right to counsel (6th Amendment). Miranda gave a written confession and acknowledged that this could be used against him. He was convicted, and Arizona’s Supreme Court kept this ruling because Miranda did not ask for an attorney. The US Supreme Court then reversed the conviction and came up with the Miranda Warnings. These warnings protect suspects from impermissible psychological interrogation.

Dickerson v US Supreme Court

In 2000, with a 7-2 vote, the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the Miranda Warnings. The problem was in determining whether a 1968 congressional statute, that determined whether a confession was voluntary, courts should weigh several factors, not just the Miranda Warnings. The Supreme Court had to decide whether this statute was an unconstitutional attempt to overrule Miranda. It was assumed that if a confession was given before the Miranda Warnings had been given, then it was not voluntary. In the end, the Miranda Warnings were found constitutional and was part of the 14th Amendment of due process.

United States vs. Patane

Samuel Patane was getting arrested. While he was getting his Miranda rights read to him, he stopped the officer, and the officer didn’t get to finish. When police questioned him about his firearm, they couldn’t use that information against him. The case later had to be reversed and remanded. The issue was that the accused person was not aware of his rights before his trial, which was that the fruits from an unwarned but voluntary statement from a suspect may be admitted against that person at trial. The Supreme Court ended up reversing and remanding the case. The decision didn't seem to change much in the court system.

Yarborough vs. Alavarado

==== This case involved Miranda warnings that only applies to juveniles. Alvarado was 17 and not read his Miranda rights. The police said he wasn’t in custody at the time of interrogation, so he didn’t have to be read his rights. Weather or not they could use the confessions from the interrogation of Alvarado. The court decided to overturn the state court’s decision about custody because it was not objectively correct. This case gave the Supreme Court an opportunity to further refine the Miranda rights in terms of minors.====

**3.) What is the significance of "custodial" versus "noncustodial" circumstances when discussing Miranda rights? **
When one is arrested they are put into custody, with knowing the thought of the police having suspected he or she of a crime. The policeman's job is to tell you you're Miranda Rights, including the right to remain silent, meaning that they have the right to not answer any questions. When the criminal is questioned under non custodial terms, the policeman is not required to read the Miranda Rights to you, based on the facts of he or she not being suspected of anything until evidence is available to prove that he or she is guilty.