The law officer is required to sell the Miranda rights to John based on the Fifth Amendment. The rights of Miranda demonstrate to the offenders that in the court of law, whatever they claim can be used against them. In addition, the officers had to justify to him his right to be directed. It relates to security questions because John is already in the custody of officers that he has the right to be given the protections of Miranda regardless of the fact that he is an illegal alien that he deserves equal protection clause (Feinberg, 2010). If the captains does not advise John based on the above important laws, which are tenable by the country’s constitution, the unwarned declarations, which John will make concerning the incriminating statements, will not be used against him in the court of law. Therefore, the police officers need to ensure that they inform the arrested persons of these Miranda rights to avoid cases of freeing guilty persons. Moreover, communication measures are also essential to ensure understanding between the two parties.
Following the arrest of John shoplifting commodities worth $ 1, 000, the police officers need to follow specific steps during the arrest as well as the interviews they conduct with John. First, the detainee, John, will have to be reserved, the place where he will be accused. Secondly, the individual belongings such as identification card, clothes, and cell phones are taken and stored safely. Third, the suspect is photographed and fingerprinted as well. Fingerprinting helps in confirming the identity and check for an outstanding warrant (Holley, 2009). After the booking process, John will be apprehended for prosecution to appear for trial in the court. The magistrate can choose where there are possibilities for his detention. The magistrate will have to choose whether the detainee will be released on bail or without bail. Since, John is an immigrant, even with the publication of bail; John will have to pay the immigration bond before he is released. He will them wait for the finishing of the criminal case and proceed with the deportation processes.
There are major differences between preliminary hearing and a grand jury in a court case. Preliminary hearing is a process used to determine the availability of enough evidence against John that will make him proceed for trials. On the other side, grand jury refers to the situation where a group of citizens listen to the provided evidence and submit their views if the suspect undergoes trials (Feinberg, 2010). The court could use the two procedures in dealing with the felony case against John. However, in most cases, preliminary hearings are frequently used as compared to the grand jury process.
In the course of the judge setting bond for John, he deserves to take into account specific issues in the process. The amount of bond that the magistrate decides depends on several factors about the crime case. The judge will have to take into account the criminal records and the processes in which the crime occurred to identify the mistakes involved on a legal basis. Secondly, the judge will consider the history of John in appearing for court dates and how effective he was in answering the questions granted (Holley, 2009). Thirdly, the judge will consider the relation of the crime and the criminal to the community and the society. Finally, despite the action of the mistakes done by John, the judge will have to find out whether John is a danger to other people in the society. These considerations will help the judge to place the most appropriate bond towards the detainee.
Arraignment refers to the time when the detainee appears before the magistrate. During an arraignment, the detainee can appeal permissible advice either from the private advocate or even from a communal protector (Feinberg, 2010). Additionally, during the arraignment, the arrested individual can waive the right to counsel and defend himself based on the accusations. In this case, the detainee can enter the pleas and possibly have a bail amount.
Feinberg, J. (2010). The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Volume 4: Harmless Wrongdoing.
Holley, B. (2009). It is all in your head: neurotechnological lie detection and the fourth and fifth amendments.