Missouri criminal laws permit law enforcement officers to conduct searches of the area of immediate control of persons and motorists under lawful arrest. The term immediate control refers to an area with an arrested person’s reach, which includes the arrestee’s person and the area from within which they might gain possession of destructible evidence or a weapon. When used in relation to automobiles, immediate control refers to an area close enough to allow an arrestee to instantly gain control of an automobile’s movements. Searches of the area of immediate control happen to be among the exceptions to the requirement for law enforcement officers to have a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment.
In Missouri, offenders on probation and parole are obligated to submit to warrantless searches by probation or parole officers throughout the period that they are under state supervision. As a condition of placing an offender on probation or parole, the offender is required to give up their normal 4th Amendment rights which protect citizens from unreasonable searches by the police. A probation or parole officer does not need probable cause to conduct a search on the body, car or residence of an offender on probation or parole.
The U.S. constitution’s fifth amendment protects a person from self-incrimination. The amendment states that no one “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This means that a person has the right to remain silent during police interrogation. According to the courts, the right to remain silent was initiated to help a person avoid the “cruel trilemma” of contempt, perjury, and self-incrimination. This is because a person who is forced to answer questions during a police interrogation may choose to;
Applying the Miranda can be confusing for some law officers, thanks to Hollywood! Depiction and interpretation of Miranda in real life is far from what we are made to believe in the movies. The entertainment industry makes it look like every arrest requires Miranda without any due process. That couldn’t be farther from the truth.
What is Miranda Rule?
The rule got its name from the Supreme Court’s landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The rule gives criminal suspects in a custodial interrogation the right to remain silent. In essence, suspects have the right to refuse to talk without a lawyer during an interrogation. The aim is to ensure that the statements rendered by suspects are admissible in court.
Any evidence or information divulged under threat, coercion or violence is deemed inadmissible in the courts. It serves to avoid any form of self-incrimination by the suspect. The suspect must be made aware of his/her rights to remain silent, right to a lawyer, and the right to stop answering questions at any time. This rule is derived from the Fifth Amendment.
Miranda rule is applicable in the use of testimonial evidence during criminal proceedings.
An officer who is transporting a suspect is definitely not part of the interrogation and therefore has no right to interrogate the suspect concerning the crime. Such officer, however, has the right to ask basic questions about age, address and such. The detective assigned the case has the right to ask questions related to the crime but requires Miranda to do so.
Miranda rule is time specific. In cases where Miranda rule applies, the officer in charge must read the suspect the Miranda rights. If after maybe one week, the officer required further information from the same suspect, the officer must again read the Miranda rights to that suspect so far as the suspect remains in custody.
Miranda applies only to testimonial evidence. From the Fifth Amendment, this means testimonial statements that stem from facts.
The evidence must be obtained when the suspect is in custody. To determine whether a person is in custody requires the application of the ‘Reasonable Person Rule.’ Assuming you are as a reasonable person watching as a police officer places a person on handcuffs and puts them in a police vehicle and subsequently arrested, you would easily conclude that such a person is in custody of the police. On the other hand, if you observe an officer discussing with your neighbor who is out walking his dog, you would not see your neighbor as being in custody.
If an officer walks up to a suspect in his tennis court and interrogates him about a crime. The suspect, without knowing the officer has a warrant for his arrest and without the officer informing the suspect that he is under arrest, confesses to the crime. Upon such admission, the officer places the suspect under arrest without further interrogation. Miranda right is not necessary in this scenario as there was no custody or arrest prior to the confession of the suspect. No reasonable person will believe the suspect was under custody either.
Any evidence gathered must have been during an interrogation and conducted by state-agents. The questions must be such that would elicit incriminating responses from the suspect.
Miranda must be applied when these factors are present.
The procedures of witness identification face many constitutional challenges. The challenges to these procedures are focused on the provisions of the Sixth amendment below.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. reads in part; ”In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”.
The right to a speedy trial ensures that the state brings an individual to trial among bound points in time. There are completely different points in time supported federal law and state law. If the applicable point in time passes, the litigator could assert that his or her right to a speedy trial has been denied which the criminal charges ought to be fired. in addition to guaranteeing the correct to associate degree lawyer, the Sixth change to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal litigator the correct to a speedy trial by associate degree “impartial jury.” this suggests that a criminal litigator should be dropped at trial for his or her alleged crimes among a fairly short time once arrest, which before being condemned of most crimes, the litigator includes a constitutional right to be tried by a jury, that should notice the litigator guilty “beyond an inexpensive doubt.”
Missouri is one of the several states in the U.S. that use a grand jury system to determine criminal indictments. Basically, a grand jury is a group of citizens selected to sit on a jury to investigate possible criminal conduct and determine whether charges should be brought against a potential defendant. Missouri laws empower the grand jury to conduct legal proceedings and decide if there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime and should be indicted. However, it should be noted that it’s not the responsibility of the grand jury to find guilt or propose penalties to a party. The grand jury in Missouri plays a key role in running a valuable test for prosecutors in making a decision whether to press charges or not
Probable cause refers to a legal standard used in the United States by the police to get a warrant for a search or arrest of a suspect. Grand juries use this for their indictments. It is the procedure used in prosecuting and arresting criminals and also to make searches which relate with their properties or personal issues.
The aim of the Exclusionary rule is to protect the rights of American citizens, protect them from arbitrary intrusion and dissuade law officials from abusing constitutional rights. The rule prevents the use of direct evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution inadmissible in court. Evidence such as one gained from unreasonable search and seizure or other unconstitutional manner may be suppressed by the court. This means that the court will mostly not admit such evidence in the event of the criminal’s trial. The rule is also employed when a violation indirectly results in incriminating evidence.
Determining the line between a stop and an arrest can be really difficult, yet very crucial. Crucial because the police must satisfy particular conditions before either stopping or arresting a suspect. For instance, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion before he can stop and frisk a suspect. Yet, reasonable suspicion is not enough for an arrest. There must be probable cause for an arrest. And usually, when incriminating evidence is found during any of these encounters, the admissibility of that evidence in court becomes shaky except the police fully satisfied the prerequisite conditions before initiating an encounter with a suspect.