What did the U.S. Supreme Court hold in U.S. v. Patane (2004)? What was the Court's rationale? Explain why you agree or disagree with this decision
What will be an ideal response?
In 2004 in United States v. Patane, the Court reversed the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause does not require the exclusion of physical evidence obtained as a result of a voluntary statement made without a Miranda warning:
"[T]he Miranda rule is a prophylactic employed to protect against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause. The Self-Incrimination Clause, however, is not implicated by the admission into evidence of the physical fruit of a voluntary statement.. The Miranda rule is not a code of police conduct, and police do not violate the Constitution (or even the Miranda rule, for that matter) by mere failure to warn. For this reason, the exclusionary rule articulated in cases such as Wong Sun does not apply.".
You might also like to view...
What was noted about the success of the Integrated Criminal Apprehension Program?
a. it was very successful b. it was limited due to the complexity of the concept c. no one could determine its level of success d. no city saw any benefit to it
Mexican criminal enterprises tend to cooperate with each other.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
The "fire tetrahedron" includes the three sides of the fire triangle
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Terrorism requires _________________ research because it involves so many aspects of the human experience
a. single stage b. counterdisciplinary c. interdisciplinary d. intradisciplinary