The Fifth Amendment requires the arresting officer to inform the individual of his/her rights before the arrest takes place. Hence, they are the wordings that are used when a person is read the Miranda Warning. Failure to that, any confessions given will not be applicable in the courts of law. Apart from that, the suspect ought to give a vibrant and affirmative feedback to the Miranda statement. Several cases can be deduced to have addressed the Miranda Rights. One such case is the Berghuis v/s Thompkins. It was a case where the court held that the suspect understood his obligations of remaining inaudible. Even though the right was not equivocally, invoke or waived the right (Hartman, Mersky, Tate, & United States, 2004).
In 2000, Chester Thompkins was held as a wrongdoer for a shoot-out in Michigan. The police interrogation recordings evidently indicated that he was silent the entire 3 hours investigation period. Although at one time or the other he made some “yes” answers to certain questions, he is on record to have made motions to suppress his statements. He appeared to have opted to his Fifth Amendment right specifically that of remaining silent and did not waiver it at any given time (Hartman, et al, 2004). However, the court denied the claim, and he was later found guilty of first-degree murder as well as other charges. He was sent behind bars without the possibility of parole. From the exceeding elucidation, it is undeniable that the case applied the Miranda Rights (Hartman, et al., 2004). For instance, Thompkins understood the Miranda rights explaining why he opted to remain silent during the interrogation process even though he did not mention the option to the police.
Hartman, G. R., Mersky, R. M., Tate, C. L., & United States. (2004). Landmark Supreme Court cases: The most influential decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Facts on File