This is one thing we, as a police officer stress, is the person in custody and being interrogated? First of all, as a law enforcement officer, usually, we do not ask them to step out of the vehicle in the first round of questioning. No police officer will ask the person to step out of the vehicle and just put handcuffs on that person. The officer would inquire with more questions before he or she would ask the individual to step out of the vehicle. Wrong again, law enforcement officers do like Miranda, it is usually misused. In my opinion, this was not the best example. Commonly, police officers read directly off of a piece of paper regarding the Amendment and the rights of the subject. All too often, the suspect just wants to get out of jail, so they will make a statement on their own free will by signing all of the necessary documents. Handcuffs go on, and we read from the card only if the officer is asking incriminating questions. The officer does not have to issue Marinda if he or she is not asking incriminating questions. "- Ryan Krupp"

I understand, as a police officer why you could be frustrated, but I feel if a police officer wants to make sure they can use any information obtained it is as simple as reading the suspect his or her Miranda rights. Somewhere along the way, I think we forget the reason behind something and I think we see this a lot in the criminal justice organization, why something was created and what purpose it is to serve. For instants why we have Miranda rights and how it came about. It is not only to protect our Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and our Sixth Amendment right to counsel so all people can make intelligent choices about whether to waive those rights and speak to the police, whether to invoke those rights and not submit to interrogation, and whether to insist on having an attorney present before and during questioning, but I feel it also works as a deterrence to police officers, or a least I think it was attended as such. How easy it was to obtain a confession through torture or other forms of overt coercion, and how tempting it was for a government to use such tactics. In the 20th century, police officers would beat suspects, or keep defendants in isolation for days, to get a confession. The methods of police interrogation were so diverse, and the effects of isolation, intimidation and defendant ignorance so varied, that appellate courts found it difficult to determine afterward whether a confession had been truly voluntary so in when the case of Miranda established a universal standard, requiring people in police custody to be read their rights before being questioned. I think to keep the officer in check if they don’t restrain from this behavior under most circumstances, failure to comply with this rule would lead to a suppression of the confession, at this keeps the officers from doing the wrong thing. The problem was trying to determine what counted as a coerced confession. Mr. Krupp, do you think my reasoning on the matter is true? Great video.

So NOTE TO ALL DO. NOT AGREE OR SIGN ANYTHING NO MATTER WHAT THEY READ TO YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THEIR AGENCY LAWS ALWAYS SAY YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND AND DONT SIGN ANYTHING

Kruck laws wherebsre you locate

Welcome to our discussion on the 5th Amendment and Miranda Warnings. Let me know what you think in the comments below! - Prof. Krupp