50 words agree or disagree to each question Q 1. How do you think that the judge will rule on your motion? When answering this question, please review the summary of the Berghuis v. Thompkins where th

50 words agree or disagree to each question

Q 1.

How do you think that the judge will rule on your motion? When answering this question, please review the summary of the Berghuis v. Thompkins where the Supreme Court considered the position of a suspect who understands his or her right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona and is aware he or she has the right to remain silent, but does not explicitly invoke or waive the right. How does this case and/ or other relevant case law impact the judge's ruling on your motion? 

I think the judge will rule that the confession alone would not be sufficient enough to uphold the charges. The actual breathalyzer wasn't given until 5 hours later and when it was finally given the college freshman, he blew right under the legal limit. Apart from that the officer pulled over the student based on reasonable suspicion and reasonable suspicion alone would not uphold in court. The further questioning of the student was a violation of the students 5th amendment and his right of due process.  

2. Note that it is estimated that about 75% of suspects routinely waive their Miranda rights and talk to the police.1  Do you believe that this suspects are willingly waiving their rights with a full understanding of the rights they are waiving? Why or why not? How can we as a society do better to ensure people are willingly either invoking or waiving their rights? How can we assist law enforcement in their work in doing so? 

I don't believe these suspects are willingly waiving their rights but are instead coerced into talking to law enforcement. This is done every day when law enforcement officer ask suspects to work with them in order for them to help out.  I think as a society we really "main streamed" the Miranda Rights, but have yet been able to mirror the importance of it and the significance of it in an arrest. We can help law enforcement by implementing training programs for current officers to keep current on their state Mirandas Laws and arrest procedures. 

function resize(){   mySetMainFrameHeight('Main049d0d2cx3b49x4139xbd40x0f5c7883bceb');   }     < Previous ConversationNext Conversation >

Q 2.

Based on this scenario I think the judge would rule in my favor. Although I should not have been driving drunk, I was under the legal limit. The officers brought me in because I was in fact driving under the influence and driving erratically. Seeing as though I am an aspiring law student If I refuse the breathalyzer it could turn out the same if I blow over the legal limit. With that in mind I took the breathalyzer voluntarily. The police were not satisfied with the breathalyzer and then continued to interrogate me. At this point they are trying to do whatever they can to make an arrest. Not at any point did any officer whom I encountered while I was in custody read me my rights or mention anything about an attorney being present. There was no question or any implied consent that I even knew what they were. In Reference to the case Berghuis v. Thompkins he being Thompkins refused to sign the agreement after having the rights read to him and reading the right aloud himself. It was not made clear that refusing to sign the document was him using his rights. In my case I was not read my rights at all which is why I think people will side with me. I'm not surprised that so many people routinely waive their Miranda rights and talk to the police because everyone doesn’t understand the full concept. One of the main reasons I think you are still trying to gain understanding of what’s going on so at that point you may feel some kind of pressure to cooperate in order to become free. We as a society can definitely do better in this matter buy simply educating ourselves and sharing our knowledge with others. As a police officer and public servant, it should go without saying that you should help the public in every way possible. 

Q 3.

After reading this situation and mentally putting myself in the situation based on the scenario, the only real explanation is that stupid and deserve to go to jail. Like billboards or commercials state, buzzed driving is still drunk driving. Either way in this situation, whether I denied to the breathalyzer or not, it would still end up bad for me. Now even though I decided to take the breathalyzer, I did that was on my on freewill with no pressure to do so. The first problem within this scenario is the fact that law enforcement failed to issue me my Miranda rights, which clearly violated my 5th and 6th amendment rights. Law enforcement understand that they must inform of my rights, especially when it comes to stripping me of my freedoms and arresting me. In Berghuis v. Thompkins, Thompkins was provided and explained of them. Even after a clear explanation, refused to sign that he acknowledged those warnings. By providing statements and answering questions, police failed to provide him with an explanation that after signing the waiver does not mean his 5th amendment right was being utilized. It is this reason why I believe that the court would side with me. 

When it comes to Miranda rights, most of your common citizens do not fully grasp the idea. They look at is as something law enforcement must read to you. Yet during the situation, they don’t fully understand the importance of these rights. Given the fact that once your in police custody or even in the police presence, many individuals begin to feel worried or nervous which can affect an individuals thought process and ability to handle situations. 

Berghuis v. Thompkins. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1470