AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 94

7.15. Cases of 1961-1966.-

Going further, in 1966,1 the rules as to police interrogation of criminal suspects were examined in detail. The new doctrine (to quote from the court's own words) was thus stated:-

"The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. (The Fifth Amendment guarantees that "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness, against himself.)"

Equally relevant is the earlier decision of 1961.2 The Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". Implementing this constitutional guarantee, the Supreme Court held that any real object seized by the police is barred from evidence in all federal and state criminal proceedings.

1. Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 US 436.

2. Mapp v. Chio, (1961) 367 US 643; see para. 7.17, infra.



Evidence Obtained Illegally or Improperly - Proposed Section 166a of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys