what was the case Miranda v. Arizona about?
547146
The decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) essentially is that any time a person is in custody and subject to interrogation, the police must apprise the person of his rights, or the statements are inadmissible in court.
579468
Try this site, it might be helpful.\n\nhttp://www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/notification/search.asp
429804
The rights of the criminally accused can be found in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th amendments. What happened in Miranda v. Arizona was that Miranda was arrested for raping and beating a girl. He was not informed of his right to council or right to remain silent. He ended up confessing to this crime after two hours of "interrogation" without an attorney. Miranda was innocent of the crime but he was unaware that he didn't have to confess. The Supreme Court ruled that officers must read a person their rights when they are under arrest or if they are being charged with a crime.
987711
Like mikeysco said: Yes, yes, and yes. \n\nHere is an excerpt from a CA District Attorney's article that discusses Miranda and courts' rulings on it:\n\nMINORS: Minors have the same Miranda rights as adults and, therefore, need not be\ngiven any additional information. In the past, there was some confusion over whether\nofficers must notify a minor that he has a right to speak with a parent before questioning\nor that he may have a parent present during questioning. The answer to both is no.
471973
The citation for United States vs Sharpe is 470 US 675 (1985).\n\n\nHere are the facts of the case:\nArgued November 27, 1984 \nDecided March 20, 1985 \n\n\n\nA Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent, while patrolling a highway in an area under surveillance for suspected drug trafficking, noticed an apparently overloaded pickup truck with an attached camper traveling in tandem with a Pontiac. Respondent Savage was driving the truck, and respondent Sharpe was driving the Pontiac. After following the two vehicles for about 20 miles, the agent decided to make an "investigative stop" and radioed the South Carolina State Highway Patrol for assistance. An officer responded, and he and the DEA agent continued to follow the two vehicles. When they attempted to stop the vehicles, the Pontiac pulled over to the side of the road, but the truck continued on, pursued by the state officer. After identifying himself and obtaining identification from Sharpe, the DEA agent attempted to radio the State Highway Patrol officer. The DEA agent was unable to contact the state officer to see if he had stopped the truck, so he radioed the local police for help. In the meantime, the state officer had stopped the truck, questioned Savage, and told him that he would be held until the DEA agent arrived. The agent, who had left the local police with the Pontiac, arrived at the scene approximately 15 minutes after the truck had been stopped. After confirming his suspicion that the truck was overloaded and upon smelling marihuana, the agent opened the rear of the camper without Savage's permission and observed a number of burlap-wrapped bales resembling bales of marihuana that the agent had seen in previous investigations. The agent then placed Savage under arrest and, returning to the Pontiac, also arrested Sharpe. Chemical tests later showed that the bales contained marihuana. Respondents were charged with federal drug offenses, and, after the District Court denied their motion to suppress the contraband, were convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because the investigative stops failed to meet the Fourth Amendment's requirement of brevity governing detentions on less than probable cause, the marihuana should have been suppressed as the fruit of unlawful seizures.
323381
Landmark Supreme Court case that established right to counsel in petty convictions.  Gideon was jailed, and made a handwritten petition to the Supreme Court.  Movie made of the incident starring Henry Fonda.  Events happened about 1954. Book published about it called "Gideon's Trumpet".
1042643
A warrant gives law enforcers the authority to perform an action, such as search your house or arrest you.  It unties the police's hands of having to have 'probable cause' in order to treat you as a suspect.\n\n\nThe Miranda Warning(for USA) is:\nYou have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements.
864464
Marbury v. Madison.  But the fact is, the Tenth Amendment was then and has been violated with this "supremacy."  The federal jurisdiction was supposed to be limited to those powers granted in the Constitution.
68737
Marbury v Madison; the most famous Supreme Court case of all.
357955
The American Court System is an offshoot of Englands. However, we made some important changes. For example in England there were two differant sets of rules and law for those who were Aristocrates and those who were not. We saw this as inherently unfair. We changed it to make everybody equal under the law. Well we are trying to do this. \n\nWe also made laws which resulted in the Miranda Rights. To be free of arrest without basis or warrent, to be allowed an attorney, to be allowed to not incriminate ourselves, to be allowed an attorney, to be free from abusive and undully long interogation, etc. We are read these rights when arrested and if they are not read what we say can not be held against us and usually result in cases getting thrown out of court. The police are very carefull to read individuals these rights.\n\nI will not go into how these can be abused as well. Any Justice System will not be perfect. For example: While we are provided an attorney if we can not afford one, that attorney probably does not have the ability to give as good a defense as one we pay for ourselves. This is due to how overworked public defenders are, The fact they are paid from the same source as the prosocution, and have much more limited resources to defend us with.\n\nThere is a much higher rate of the poor going to jail than those who are more financial able to attain the best defense possibe.\n\nDid you know that an innocent person can be bankrupt durring a trail? That if found innocent or not guilty they do not receive a refund of their attorney costs? I find this wrong. I understand it would be difficult to refund every persons attorney fees if not found quilty. But if it was a requirment then less hasty arrests would occurr as police made double sure they had a good case. It would benifit our justice system if this were a requirement as less arrests without real probable cause would occurr and people who were innocent would not unfairly lose all their money just defending against wrongfully brought charges. We would also be much more inclined to get back to the belief of "innocent untill proven guilty" instead of the current trend of "guily untill proven innocent".\n\nWhile in theory we are considered innocent untill proven guilty, those who get arrested are really assummed to be guilty or they would not have been arrested in the first place. While this is simply untrue, basically this is what society and the press believes now.\n\nI kind of got off track here, sorry. I really do belive our justice system is better than most in the world. Like I said earlier, no justice system can be perfect.\n\nWe took much of our justice system from the "common law" of England. From there we "improved" upon it, untill we are where we are today. Hope this helps in some small way.
767754
there is a website.. http://judithmiller.org/news/p20050801.php and it provides alot of information on the case, trial, and the court's decision. it also has a bio on judith miller, as well as newspaper stories about the case.
48823
First of all, the ACLU would have nothing to do with this case. They generally only take cases involving the government infringing on people's civil liberties.\n\nSecond of all, where's your source for this case? You have a few specific details, so surely you must have some news story or a link of some kind to more information? I have a hard time believing your statement.\n\nThird of all, the answer to your question is "no."
458424
American Ice Company v. Hunter, Appellant.\nNo. 267, Oct. T., 1914\nSUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n60 Pa. Super. 311, *; 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187, ** \n60 Pa. Super. 311; 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187\n\nAre you looking for the whole case?
280232
Yes, but it doesn't happen terribly often.  \n\nStil, there are examples.  Gideon v. Wainwright, for instance, overturned Betts v. Brady in ruling that persons accused of felonies were entitled to the assistance of counsel in state courts.  That led directly to a whole line of cases characterized by Miranda v. Arizona about the rights of criminal defendants.\n\nBut the Supreme Court overturning itself is still by far the exception, rather than the rule.  It usually takes a significant change in the nature of the issue and facts presented, or a significant change in the court, or even the nation, before it happens.
1096195
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=431&invol=678\n\n CAREY, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, ET AL. v. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL\nET AL.\nAPPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nNo. 75-443.\n\nArgued January 10, 1977\nDecided June 9, 1977\n\nSection 6811 (8) of the New York Education Law makes it a crime (1) for any person to sell or distribute any contraceptive of any kind to a minor under 16; (2) for anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute contraceptives to persons 16 or over; and (3) for anyone, including licensed pharmacists, to advertise or display contraceptives. In appellees' action against appellant state officials challenging the constitutionality of 6811 (8), a three-judge District Court declared the statute unconstitutional in its entirety under the First and Fourteenth Amendments insofar as it applies to nonprescription contraceptives, and enjoined its enforcement as so applied. Held: The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 682-703; 707-708; 713-716.
112712
Probable Cause: Referencing the 1st link below (comes from Smith v. U.S. 1949 establishing the experienced police officer standard)\nThe 2nd link details the Fourth Amendment, which is where your rights against unlawful searches and seizures of your person/property/etc are explained.\n\nMR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE delivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe case was Brinegar v. United States, where Mr. Brinegar was arrested for liquor running in Oklahoma. The link below details the case, including the subsequent appeals and relation to another case, Carroll v. United States. Both of which revolve around search and seizure rules as relating to  vehicles.
253719
http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=1919&IssueNum=97\n\nThe author of that article and the attornies mentioned in the story...the ruling on that suit is pending, but the Federal Judge is leaning towards the Plaintiff (that's the inmates, in this case)