Miranda Warning

The Miranda warnings should be read and explained whenever a law enforcement officer is going to conduct any form of custodial interrogation on an individual that is either a suspect of a crime or immediately following an arrest where incriminating questions may be directed toward the individual being arrested.

There are numerous reasons why law enforcement officials should read individuals their Miranda warning. First the Miranda warning was primarily implemented for the sole purpose of informing, educating and protecting all individual legal and illegal here within the United States borders of their 5^th and 6^th Amendment Rights. In addition, the Miranda warning being read will explain to the individual, she or he does not have to self-incriminate and has the right to remain silent if so desire. In addition, the Miranda warning further explains to the individual being arrested that, she or he, has the right to legal representation by a professional attorney and if that individual does not have the financial capability to employ a private counsel then one will be appointed by the state to that individual. This in return, helps alleviate any confusion that may exist and helps reassure individuals that the United States criminal Justice does, in fact, offer certain guaranteed safe guards (Sniffen, 2009).

Additionally, another key reason the Miranda warning should be read to individuals during an interrogation or while conducting an arrest, is to prevent the possibility losing gathered incriminating evidence, and alleviates forced and coerced confessions. Numerous have been lost in our court system across the United States as a result of Judges throwing out incriminating evidence or made the obtained evidence inadmissible in court due to the evidence being illegally obtained by law enforcement. This in return, has caused serious problems for prosecutors when trying to build a case in order to make a conviction, departments become scrutinized by the public as many individuals throughout society believe tax money is being wasted due to technical error, and society and victims feel a sense of further victimization by both the legal system and offenders as each begin to believe no form of Justice exists and wrongdoers are able to go free.

Furthermore, the Miranda warning displays a level of professionalism within our criminal justice system as a result of it being implemented into the Due Process of Law. This in return, instills into departments and individual officers that any part of the Due Process of Law such as the Miranda warning is always a first priority; therefore preventing a vast majority of obtained confessions untrustworthy and unreliable.

In the Appendix I scenario, there were a few underlying circumstances that gave me reason to believe the Miranda warning was not required by the arresting officer in this situation. The officer was dispatched for a burglary crime and while on route witnessed a suspicious individual dressed in black running in the location of where the crime occurred. This in return placed reasonable suspicion in the officer's mind; therefore, permitting the officer to detain temporarily and question the individual suspect. As a result of the officers presence the suspect decided to take off running on foot which further granted the officer the legal ability to conduct a foot chase due to the circumstances.

During the officer's foot pursuit, the officer witnessed the suspect performing what appeared to be a throwing motion of his right arm in which in return lead the officer to believe the suspect was removing something incriminating from his persons in order to evade legal issues. Shortly after the throwing motion the officer heard a metal clinking sound. After apprehending the suspect, the officer asked the individual if he had thrown a weapon, something that was unrelated to the original crime of a burglary where stolen property would be present and the Miranda warning would be needed or should be read for guaranteed Due Process Protection (Find Law, 2009).

The suspect replied to the officer that he had thrown a knife and while the officer was retrieving the weapon other evidence was obtained, such as jewelry. The suspect abandoned the evidence but admitted from what I had gathered that the evidence was stolen not in the officer's presence but possibly during a custodial interrogation. One main factor that lead me to believe the officer did not need to read the individual the Miranda warning was a result of the officer only questioning the individuals in regard to a weapon not stolen property.

Reference

Sniffen, M. (2009). Boston.com: Court to tackle clarity of Miranda warning again. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/06/22/court_to_tackle_clarity_of_miranda_warnings_again/

Find Law. (2009). Yarborough v. Alvarado: Should the Miranda Warnings Be Required Police Procedure. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/synopsis.html