solved Students must provide a critical review of the questions, topics

Students must provide a critical review of the questions, topics and issues posed and substantively reply to the contributions of at least three peers. Individual postings should include a full discussion of the content of the question posed and explain how it relates to the concepts in the weekly text readings and other resources. The postings should be analytic in nature and include comparisons/contrasts, and examples that can bolster your point. The Discussion is for your benefit and it is important to respond to the discussion topic and to engage others in a running dialogue.
Respond to 3 classmate posts 250 words 
Classmate 1 Diane:My personal opinion is that people should be educated on their rights and law enforcement should not be required to advise them, neither their 4th, 5th or 6th Amendment rights. However, as a society we are not educated, so the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona ensures that law enforcement advise suspects of their 4th/5th Amendment rights when they are taken into custody. One important aspect of the Miranda warning that I was not aware of is the broad range of warning that “vary remarkably in their length, complexity, and comprehensibility” (Rogers, Harrison et al., 2007, pg. 188) Some are fewer than 60 words while others top 300 words. In this study it was found the complexity of warnings ranged from a 4th grade level to needing a college education to understand (Rogers, Harrison et al., 2007). For this reason, police should be required to offer a Miranda warning that is in simple English and understandable. An example is the common Miranda warning we hear on television shows and movies. This also gives a suspect the opportunity to say they do not understand their rights.
The main difference between police asking for consent to search vs. needing to read Miranda rights is whether a person is in custody or not. When asked for consent to search, a person may be a suspect, but they are not in police custody and free to leave. Once in custody of the police, they must be read their Miranda rights prior to any interrogation or questioning. An interesting study found that even if the “arresting officer” was belligerent towards a suspect, suspect’s who believed in their innocence were just as likely to waive their Miranda rights than those who knew they were guilty (Kassin & Norwick, 2004). One way around this is for police to talk to a suspect and get a confession prior to making the arrest. In this case, if they reveal pertinent information or a confession before the arrest, it is not covered under the 5th Amendment/Miranda and is admissible in court.
The most important aspect of Miranda is that it protects from self-incrimination (5thAmendment) and provides legal counsel if requested (6th Amendment). It’s goal is to protect suspects from being coerced into providing a confession (real or not) to law enforcement. Miranda rights also ensure that they are not simply recited to a suspect, but that the suspect agrees that they understand the rights as they were presented to them.
References:
Kassin, S., Norwick, R. (2004) Why People Waive Their Miranda Rights: The Power of Innocence. Law 
Of Human Behavior, 28, 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022323.74584.f5
Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Shuman, D. W., Sewell, K. W., & Hazelwood, L. L. (2007). An Analysis of
Miranda Warnings and Waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31(2),
177-192. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1007/s10979…
Classmate 2 Stephine: The Miranda warnings or rights identify some of the basic constitutional rights protected by both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Miranda rights must be read to a person when they are subject to a custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogations are conducted in a situation where the person is not free to leave. The person being questioned may voluntarily waive any or all of these rights and the right to remain silent can be invoked at any time.
Consent searches involve a process where the rights guaranteed by the constitution can be waived by the person that has the right. So if an individual gives the police permission to search and it is done voluntarily, then there is no violation of the person’s Fourth Amendment rights. Searches must be supported by probable cause, and while a large amount of cases are made because many don’t know what’s best for their legal interest the Supreme has ruled police are not obligated to inform citizens that they have the right to refuse consent. Studies have even concluded that requiring police to advise citizens of their right to refuse consent may have little effect on the answer. 
There are many situations where a person may not necessarily feel free to leave, but they are not in “custody” for Miranda purposes. Miranda does not come into play when an officer stops a person briefly to speak with them on the street, or during traffic stops. Or because the questioning does not involve officer asking questions to the suspect, instead the suspect confesses Miranda does not apply. 
The failure to read Miranda Rights is only an issue if there were a confession or a statement that was used as evidence against a person. The Miranda Rule is also time specific, if an interrogation takes place one day and a follow up is done the next day officers must mirandize the suspect again. Testimonial evidence and resulting physical evidence may possibly be suppressed as “Fruit of the poisonous tree” if Miranda rights were required and not given. It doesn’t matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, on scene or some other place if a person is in custody and considered deprived of his or her freedom of action in any way police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial.
References
Edge Staff (2017) When Does the Miranda Rule Apply? Retrieved from https://amuedge.com/when-does-the-miranda-rule-apply/
Sommers, R & Bohns, V. (2019) The Voluntariness of Voluntary Consent: Consent Searches and the Psychology of Compliance (April 10, 2019). Yale Law Journal, Vol. 128, No. 7, Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3369844
Classmate 3 Rickena: The Fifth Amendment is defined as No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation(“Fifth Amendment”, 2021). 
Miranda rights are coming from both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the Fifth Amendment protects the person from self- incrimination while the Sixth Amendment gives the person the right to an attorney. Miranda rights are given to suspects once the officer is either detaining the person or placing them under arrest. Many Americans don’t know their rights and don’t know what they can and can’t do when dealing with law enforcement. Police officers are required to read them their rights to inform them, that they don’t have to talk to them, hey can have an attorney and if they do talk to them, whatever they say will be used against them. In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda was arrested and charged with rape and kidnapping after he was questioned for two hours. Miranda signed a confession and it was used against him at his trial; Miranda was convicted but he appealed to all the way to the United States Supreme Court and the court found that his confession shouldn’t have been used since Miranda didn’t know he had the right to remain silent and have an attorney present; so if an officer detains or arrests you without giving you Miranda rights, whatever you say to him or her cant be used against you in court. When you are under arrest, you aren’t free to leave on your own and you are being charged with a crime so police officers must tell you, your rights and once arrested or detained, they don’t need permission to look around. Consent to search is different; the officer needs your permission to search and during this search you can stop it at any time. Your also not being charged with a crime and being detained so you are free to stop the search and leave at any time. For instance, being stopped for speeding, doesn’t mean the officer has to read my Miranda rights; although I’m pulled over, the officer doesn’t see anything in plain view and I’m not under arrest. However, if I’m pulled over for speeding and once the officer comes to my window and smells weed, he then has probable cause to search and if he finds more, I would be arrested and read my Miranda rights.
References
Fifth Amendment. (2021). Retrieved 31 March 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
Staff, Ncc. (2017). The Miranda warning is created 52 years ago today – National Constitution Center. Retrieved 31 March 2021, from https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-miranda-wa…
Classmate 3 Joseph: In the week prior we learned that a consent search is done when an officer asks a subject if they can search the person, house, car, i.e. and that individual gives the officer permission to search.  More times than not the officer may have a suspicion that the individual is engaging in some form of criminal activity.
However, since the officer does not have probable cause to search, they are trying to get permission to do so without a warrant and within the limits of the search warrant exemption.  The officer is merely acting on a feeling, for whatever reason, and wants to search the desired area.  Again, the only stipulation is that consent was given within the guidelines of the exemption and there is no interrogation being done.
The officer is interviewing the individual during the contact, yet they are not aware or have any knowledge of a particular crime, therefore, they are just asking questions and making the individual feel at ease to gain access.  This is the exact opposite of an interview or interrogation (police custody) of a subject involved or potentially involved in a crime.
Most everyone has watched a cop show and seen the infamous scene of the cop arresting a subject and immediately telling the subject they have the right to remain silent… then putting them in the cruiser and driving off with them.  Hence, a large number of people believe that when you are arrested that you have to have their rights read to them.  However, Miranda does not have to be read upon their arrest.
Moreover, U.S. v Pelayo, 02-3056, 8thCirc., ruled that during a consent search or a detainee during a Terry Stop does not trigger Miranda because they are not “in custody” (Stop, 2003).  Miranda is not a part of the Amendments.  It is a case law, Miranda v. Arizona, decided on June 13, 1966 for a violation of a subject’s Fifth Amendment rights named, Miranda. So, when does Miranda apply or have to be read?
According to the Fifth Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, it says “nor shall [anyone] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”…as well as protections such as grand jury, double jeopardy, due process, and takings (Interactive).  It was not until Ernesto Miranda was arrested in March 1963 and while in custody he confessed to kidnapping and rape charges (NCC, 2017).
During the trial Miranda’s attorney found that he had signed a confession and acknowledged he understood his legal rights, but he was not told that he had the right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent (NCC, 2017).  The 5-4 ruling makes it necessary to read the Miranda warning, however, it is not the same in each state, but the subject has to be told these four important things: they have the right to remain silent, anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law, they have the right to an attorney, and if an they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them. (Molitor, 2020). 
We must also keep in mind that Miranda does not have to be read to anyone just because they have been arrested.  In some situations, it is best to just arrest the subject and place them in the cruiser and transport them back to the police station.  During the transport the officer cannot ask the subject anything about the situation.  They can ask their names, date of birth, address, and additional information about the subject and can talk to them about anything but the case.
For whatever reason the subject decides to start talking and stating that they did what they are being accused of, the officer cannot begin to question them.  If they do begin questioning them, they have to read Miranda.  The officer/s also cannot engage in conversation that would entice the subject to incriminate himself.  If this has not happened, then whatever the subject says is considered a spontaneous utterance and can be used against him.
When there is any doubt if Miranda applies to the current situation, it is always better to be safe than sorry and read it, than to lose the confession or vital information in a suppression hearing.
References
Interactive Constitution. (n.d.). Grand jury, double jeopardy, self incrimination, due process, takings.  Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-v.
Molitor, B. (2020, August 12). Fifth Amendment Miranda rights. UpToDate Retrieved from https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/miranda-rights-and-the-fifth-amendment.html.
NCC Staff. (2017, June 13). The Miranda warning is created 52 years ago today. Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-miranda-warning-is-born-47-years-ago-today.
Stop Doesn’t Require Miranda Warning. (2003). Narcotics Enforcement & Prevention Digest, 9(20), 6-7. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/trade-journals/stop-doesnt-require-miranda-warning/docview/205509887/se-2?accountid=8289.