Researching previous cases on a Miranda warning is one of the best ways to garner information as to the ways and procedures in how an officer goes about giving this warning. The main cases that will layout the foundation of this research is the original case of Miranda v. Arizona. In order to understand the main idea of what is the Miranda warning and how it is done, as well as the issues surrounding this warning then, one must study where it originated. During research it is concluded that such warning cannot be given without a person being in custody. Several informal talks with past law professors was done in attempt to prove whether or not the officer should have given Randy his rights prior to his confession of the bank robbery. During this several questions were addressed, questions such as, by law should a Miranda warning be given upon confession? Was randy in police custody at the time of the confession and when must this warning be given. The confession of randy cannot be ignored therefore some investigation must be done concerning the confession of the robbery. The elements of a bank robbery were researched as to come to a decision about the alleged criminal position of Randy. After which one must consider, was Randay’s alleged robbery an actual crime, what constitutes a crime? If the investigation of Randy’s confession is proven to be true, should he be then formally arrested by the officers? If the confessions are proven to be true then the officer should then give him the Miranda warning.
Introduction I confess I robbed the bank, should I be held in custody, should I be given a Miranda warning? A Miranda warning is given to a suspect who is formally arrested to