What would society look like if

Eric Cartman was a police officer

Clip of Cartman
As you watch
the clip, observe
how Cartman is
using his
authority as a
police officer

Take out Did Cartman Violate Due Process?

Police officer,
Eric Cartman, is
in hot pursuit of
South Park
community
member Randy
Marsh

Officer Cartman pulls

Randy over and
shows his police ID.
Without telling Randy
what he has done
illegally, Cartman goes
ahead and orders
Randy to get out of
the car.

Randy questions why he is pulled

over but Cartman responds by
saying; Hey! Hey! You will shut up
and respect my AUTHORITY!
Randy continues his questioning so
officer Cartman responds by pulling
out his handcuffs and arresting
Randy. Randy is cuffed and thrown
in the back of Cartmans big wheel.

1) Landmark Case: Miranda vs. Arizona

2) Landmark Case: Miranda vs. Arizona

Ernesto Miranda
was a poor Mexican
immigrant who lived
in Arizona in 1963.
He was arrested
after a woman
identified him in a
police lineup.

3) Landmark Case: Miranda vs. Arizona

Miranda was
charged with rape
and kidnapping
Police asked him
questions about
the crime for two
hours.

4)Landmark Case: Miranda vs. Arizona

In the United States,
people who are accused
of crimes have certain
constitutional rights
5th Amendment- says
they have the right to be
silent
6th Amendment- says
they have the right to a
lawyer to help defend
themselves

5) Landmark Case: Miranda vs. Arizona

The police did not tell Miranda that he

had these rights when they arrested
him.
After the police were finished asking
Miranda questions, he signed a
confession, which also stated that he
acknowledged his rights.

6) Landmark Case: Miranda vs. Arizona

The police used
his confession in
the trial and
Miranda was
convicted of the
crime. The judge
decided he should
serve 20 to 30
years in prison for
each crime.

7) Landmark Case: Miranda vs. Arizona

Miranda appealed his case to the highest
court in Arizona.
His attorney argued the confession should
not have been used as evidence because;
Miranda had not been informed of his
rights,
and no attorney had been present to
assist him during his interrogation.

8) Landmark Case: Miranda vs. Arizona

The Arizona Supreme
Court denied his
appeal and upheld
Miranda's conviction.
The Supreme Court of
the United States
agreed to hear
Miranda's case. The
decision in Miranda v.
Arizona was handed
down in 1966.

9) Supreme Court rules in favor of

Miranda; his conviction is overturned
Supreme Court said:
Miranda was NOT read
his rights by the officers
No attorney (lawyer) was
present while he was
being interrogated
(questioned) by police
because Miranda was
never told he had the
right to a lawyer

10. Miranda vs. Arizona ruling led

to Miranda Rights
Police officers
have to read
Miranda rights
out loud to
anyone being
arrested
and/or
interrogated
(questioned by
police)

Interrogation (Questioning) Room

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer

questions. Anything you do say may be used against
you in a court of law.
You have the right to consult an attorney before
speaking to the police and to have an attorney present
during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for
you before any questioning if you wish.
If you decide to answer questions now without an
attorney present you will still have the right to stop
answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have
explained them to you, are you willing to answer my
questions without an attorney present?

11)Due Process
5 Amendment
th

Miranda
Rights

Next
Class
(introduced
tomorrow)

YOU DIDNT REMAIN SILENT...NOW WHAT?

Benny was arrested by New York Police and charged
with the armed robbery of a taxicab driver. While
he was in jail waiting for his trial, a New York
undercover officer was placed in Bennys cell.
Before the officer asked any questions, Benny said
that he had robbed the cab driver. Bennys
statement was used against him at trial, despite his
objection that he was not read his Miranda Rights,
in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Should a judge allow this confession in court?