Your Rights as a Citizen

Implied Rights

Implied Rights are Constitutional rights not explicitly in the text of the Constitution but rather derived from its content as well as reflective of the intent of the Framers.

Miranda Warnings

Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court which was decided in June of 1966 as a means to protect a defendant's Fifth Amendment Right to avoid self incrimination. The Court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police. The Miranda warning is a police warning, given to criminal suspects in police custody before they are asked questions about the alleged crime. Police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth and address without reading suspects their Miranda warnings. Confessions cannot be admitted until suspects have been made aware of and waived their "Miranda rights."

Though every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person when they are arrested, the typical warning is as follows:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to be speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?"

Exclusionary Rule

Often and mistakenly referred to as a "technicality" the exclusionary rule serves to deter police officers from conducting unlawful searches and seizures. It has, however, a number of exceptions. The "good faith" rule holds that evidence seized by officers objectively and in good faith relying on a warrant later found to be defective is still admissible. The evidence would still be excluded if an officer dishonestly or recklessly prepares an affidavit forming the basis of the warrant, if the issuing magistrate abandons his neutrality, or if the warrant lacks sufficient particularity. The Supreme Court has also held the rule does not apply in certain situations: (1) probation or parole revocation hearings; (2) tax hearings; (3) deportation hearings; (4) when government officials illegally seize evidence outside the United States; (5) when a "private actor" (i.e., not a State employee) illegally seized the evidence; or (6) when the illegally seized evidence is used to impeach the defendant's testimony.

Closely related to the exclusionary rule is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, under which the government is prohibited from introducing any evidence that was obtained subsequent to and as a result of the illegal search.