How we cite our quotes: (Section.Paragraph) or (Section.Subsection.Paragraph)
Quote #1
[…] the police brutally beat, kicked, and placed lighted cigarette butts on the back of a potential witness under interrogation for the purpose of securing a statement incriminating a third party. (Opinion.I.2)
You have to admit that this is an abuse of police power. But what if the suspect turns out to be a criminal who did far worse to someone else? Does the end justify the means?
Quote #2
The subject should be deprived of every psychological advantage […]. In his own office, the investigator possesses all the advantages. The atmosphere suggests the invincibility of the forces of the law. (Opinion.I.13)
The Court is reading from an official police manual here. Does it look like the police are encouraging respect for the rights of those suspects? Like Warren said, they don't seem to have the best interests of the suspect in mind.
Quote #3
We have concluded that, without proper safeguards, the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely. (Opinion.III.1)
Warren recognizes that just being in an interrogation room puts pressure on you. Some people might be so desperate to get out that they'll say anything, true or not, even without the police asking leading questions.
Quote #4
With a lawyer present, the likelihood that the police will practice coercion is reduced, and, if coercion is nevertheless exercised, the lawyer can testify to it in court. (Opinion.III.7)
Having your attorney with you gives you a little more power, because the police are less likely to do something that violates your rights when your lawyer's watching. The Miranda rule balances the scales a little bit.
Quote #5
The rule announced today will measurably weaken the ability of the criminal law to perform these tasks. (WhiteDissent.IV.7)
Justice White thinks the balance of power is tipped a little too far by the new ruling. It handcuffs law enforcement instead of the criminals. Warren's Opinion focused on the loss of power a suspect feels while in custody, while the Dissents were more concerned with the police's power.