Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q1642249> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 95 of
95
with 100 triples per page.
- Q1642249 subject Q6996306.
- Q1642249 subject Q6997103.
- Q1642249 subject Q6998020.
- Q1642249 subject Q6998815.
- Q1642249 subject Q8154089.
- Q1642249 subject Q8264148.
- Q1642249 subject Q8586660.
- Q1642249 abstract "Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court. In a 5-4 majority, the Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.This had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda rights part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. The Supreme Court decided Miranda with three other consolidated cases: Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart.The Miranda warning (often abbreviated to "Miranda", or "Mirandizing" a suspect) is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused are aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview. The circumstances triggering the Miranda safeguards, i.e. Miranda rights, are "custody" and "interrogation". Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.Per the U.S. Supreme Court decision Berghuis v. Thompkins (June 1, 2010), criminal suspects who are aware of their right to silence and to an attorney, but choose not to "unambiguously" invoke them, may find any subsequent voluntary statements treated as an implied waiver of their rights, and which may be used in evidence.".
- Q1642249 wikiPageExternalLink USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZS.html.
- Q1642249 wikiPageExternalLink usc_sec_18_00003501----000-.html.
- Q1642249 wikiPageExternalLink 436.html.
- Q1642249 wikiPageExternalLink case.html.
- Q1642249 wikiPageExternalLink SC.asp?r=384+U.S.+436.
- Q1642249 wikiPageExternalLink 1965_759.
- Q1642249 wikiPageExternalLink books?id=J1WRQBjFLTUC&pg=PA61.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q11156.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q11201.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q11698.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q1191264.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q1303850.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q1424958.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q159394.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q16931224.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q16948639.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q170277.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q18392816.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q1865205.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q188116.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q2034475.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q222249.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q240340.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q246624.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q2920224.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q311197.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q311562.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q312199.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q327018.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q3352077.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q35535.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q40348.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q4228479.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q4891665.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q4892143.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q505450.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q5273648.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q5397317.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q5419722.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q600751.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q634260.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q6503144.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q6517426.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q6528049.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q6602434.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q6614666.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q6879922.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996306.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q6997103.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q6998020.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q6998815.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q707748.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q709513.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q7102641.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q7150777.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q7186956.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q724116.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q7274184.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q7274233.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q7320986.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q7431786.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q7623615.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q7785055.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q784690.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q7892396.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q7970144.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q8016240.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q8102.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q8154089.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q8264148.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q8333.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q8586660.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q957749.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q9588.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q958904.
- Q1642249 wikiPageWikiLink Q9640.
- Q1642249 fullname "Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart".
- Q1642249 type Case.
- Q1642249 type LegalCase.
- Q1642249 type SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase.
- Q1642249 type UnitOfWork.
- Q1642249 type Situation.
- Q1642249 type Thing.
- Q1642249 type Q2334719.
- Q1642249 comment "Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court.".
- Q1642249 label "Miranda v. Arizona".
- Q1642249 name "Mirandav. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart".