the miranda warning explains a person's rights under the sixth amendment.
the miranda warning explains a person's rights under the sixth amendment.
the miranda warning explains a person's rights under the?
sixth amendment
based on the u.s. supreme court ruling in "miranda v. arizona", after making an arrest, the police must inform the detainee of their fifth amendment and sixth amendment rights in order for statements made during questioning to be admissible as evidence against the detainee in court. a miranda warning is required only when a person has been taken into custody (i.e. is not free to leave) and is being interrogated, and the results of this interrogation are to be used in court. an officer is not required to inform a person of their miranda rights if they will not be questioning them any further after their arrest. an officer is also not necessarily required to provide a miranda warning if the person they are questioning has not been arrested or if a person they have arrested speaks spontaneously without being questioned. there is also an exception that permits questioning without providing the warning under circumstances involving urgent matters of public safety.
arrest
quack miranda warning









































the quack miranda warning is a term used by skeptics to describe the text which the dietary supplement health and education act of 1994 (dshea) requires that all labels and marketing materials for products sold as dietary supplements carry, in boldface type:









































these statements have not been evaluated by the food and drug administration. this product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.









































the name is a reference to the miranda warning used by law enforcement agencies. it is also used by websites selling a variety of alternative medicine products and unproven devices.
quack miranda warning