What did the Supreme Court decide in Miranda v. Arizona and how has the court since weakened that decision?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court held that a confession resulting from in-custody interrogation was admissible in court only if, in addition to being voluntary, it had been obtained after the police had ensured the suspect's protection from self-incrimination by providing the "Miranda warnings" ("You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to the presence of an attorney…"). These warnings are intended to protect suspects from conditions that might give rise to unfounded confessions.The U.S. Supreme Court has weakened the Miranda requirements through a series of other decisions, however. Here are some of the changes:1. Confessions that violate Miranda may still be used at a trial. Suppose a person confesses when arrested, and the confession is taken in violation of the Miranda warnings. If the defendant testifies to his or her innocence at trial, the prosecutor may use the confession to show that the defendant should not be believed (Harris v. New York, 1971).2. Miranda does not apply unless the suspect is in the custody of the police. The Supreme Court has interpreted custody in various ways. For example, the Court held that roadside questioning of a motorist stopped for drunk driving is not "custody," even though the motorist is not free to go (Berkemer v. McCarty, 1984). Warnings are not required in this circumstance. "Stop-and-frisk" questioning is also usually viewed as noncustodial because such questioning merely accompanies temporary detentions in public places.3. Miranda does not apply unless the defendant is being interrogated. A volunteered confession is always admissible. Suppose the police arrest a robbery suspect and decide, for whatever reason, not to question him. On the way to the station, the accused person volunteers that he wouldn't have been caught if he'd kept his mask on. This confession is admissible because it was not in response to police questioning (Rhode Island v. Innis, 1980).