Miranda Rights Case Summary

489 Words2 Pages
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS: Officer Kraft frisked the suspect, Benjamin Quarles, and discovered that he was wearing an empty shoulder holster. Only after handcuffing Quarles, Officer Kraft asked him where the gun was, to which Quarles nodded toward some empty cartons. He then responded that "the gun is over there." Officer Kraft then retrieved the gun from one of the cartons and then formally arrested the suspect, and read him his Miranda rights. Quarles was charged in a New York state court with criminal possession of a weapon. However, the trial court excluded his initial statement and the gun because he had not yet been given the Miranda warnings before he confessed. Also, his other statements were excluded as evidence because it was tainted by the Miranda violation. Both the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed. ISSUE: (1) Whether the Miranda rights can be given after the officer’s questionings and after the suspect’s confession, even if the officer was questioning him to insure public safety from the concealed weapon. (2) Whether there is an exception rule for the Miranda rights being…show more content…
Arizona law gives the accused the right to remain silent, unless he chooses to speak on his own will. It is important to give the Miranda warnings before questioning an accused who is in custody. This protects them from a coercive interrogation. The Miranda warnings must be given before the accused’s answers can be admitted into evidence, if not it will not be valid to use in court. However, there is a public safety exception to the Miranda rights. There are three circumstances in which the Miranda rights can be delayed: (1) Public Safety Doctrine, (2) Officer Safety, and (3) Rescue Doctrine. Therefore, it was necessary for the officer to question the suspect before giving him his Miranda rights, because there was an immediate threat towards the public’s
Show More
Related

  • Illinois V Perkins Case Summary

    474 Words  | 2 Pages

    LaShelle Dam CRJ 123 – 10:30 AM Sept. 27, 2015 CASE BRIEF CASE: Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990) SUMMARY OF THE FACTS: The respondent spoke to an undercover government agent disguised as an inmate while imprisoned for charges irrelevant to a murder that agent was investigating. Respondent’s statements implicated he was involved in the murder the agent was pursuing. Respondent was soon charged with the murder. Miranda warnings were not given during their conversations; therefore, respondent

    Read More

More about Miranda Rights Case Summary

Open Document