Court Opinion

ID: 6527632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 19:23:28.039753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:15.445087
License: Public Domain

The majority predicates its reversal in part upon the officers' failure to give the Miranda warnings to Smith. The officers questioned him prior to his probation revocation hearing. Smith is charged with prejuring himself at the revocation hearing.
The manifest reason for the rule in Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, *Page 165 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 694, is to prevent coerced confessions and inculpatory statements.
How could law enforcement officers coerce a confession, etc., to a crime when the crime had not yet been committed?