Read each paragraph and giveme your opinion do you agree do you disagree with those 2 paragraphs one foreach part and if you agree or disagree why or why not cj1.As the officer who put the man that his wife in the patrolcar, I would have read his Miranda rights as soon as I confirmed that he did infact hit his wife. I would have advised him that he has the right to remainsilent since anything he says can be used against him in the court of law andthat he has a right to counsel. Depending on the judge that takes thiscase is how the outcome would be. Me just reading the scenario alone, theofficer and sergeant’s actions would make this inadmissible and a violation ofthe Miranda Rights. The Miranda warnings state: “The prosecution may notuse statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioninginitiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken intocustody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way,unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure theFifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491.” (Mirandav. Arizona)The Harris v.New York case actually was similar to Oregon v Elstad inthe way that the Miranda Rights were not read properly and the confession isinadmissible. Both cases had the same ruling overturning the convictions.I agree with the court’s ruling overturningthe conviction in the Harris v. New York case because any officer knows that ifthey want a confession, the suspect needs to be read his Miranda Rights, noif’s or buts. The Miranda Rights is to support that the suspect receiveshis rights under the constitutional law and not have been read those rights,the officer violated the Miranda Rights law and also, if the attorney is good,the 4th amendment of civil rights.My decision regarding the Miranda Rights is that I would have toread the Miranda Rights to a suspect if I want a confession in. In thescenario for this discussion, I would have stopped and read the Miranda Rightswhen I confirmed that the person in the back of my police car was in fact thesuspect I was looking and when I asked him if he hit his wife and he answeredyes, I would immediately read his Miranda Rights and go to the station.If he waived them then the admission is admissible. If not, then wouldhave his attorney present. I don’t agree with the way the officers inboth cases because the officers should have known to read the Miranda Rightsand move forward. The case of Oregon v. Elsted, the personinterrogating the suspect deliberately got a confession first, read the MirandaRights and basically had him repeat what he said before. That is a completeviolation of the Miranda Rights.2.For this unit I’ve chosen to speak about Salinas v Texas.Genovevo Salinas was a suspect in a double homicide when he was questioned forover an hour about the murders. During the questioning Salinas were not readhis Miranda rights. Salinas held back from speaking when investigators asked ifthe gun shells from the scene would match the gun he had at his residence andfor this reason he was eventually charged for the murders and sent to 20 yearsI prison. He tried to invoke 5th amendment protection and the courtsdenied that because he should have done it at the beginning of his arrest orthe questioning. As a result his confession before and after his Miranda rightswere admitted. This case is more so aligned with Oregon v Elstad and Missouriv. Seibert. As with Oregon v. Elstad and Missouri v Seibert, Salinas v. Texas’evidence was also admitted pre Miranda. I agree with the courts rulingbecause the defendant willingly went with the officers while he had the choiceof not doing so, he also spoke without an attorney and he himself gave outinformation. Moving forward, Salinas wanting to protect himself 15 years laterwhen he was caught and shield himself under the 5th amendment is notvalid. As an officer, no matter how gruesome the scene, I must pay closeattention to procedure and not jump the gun with my questioning. I have to makesure I read suspects their Miranda rights given the appropriate situations andsuspects.