The case Cooper vs Dupnik, in the year 1984 through the year 1986, a serial rapist had been suspected in a chain of rapes, robberies, and kidnappings in the metropolitan Tucson area. The police department with enforcement responsibilities in that area they formed a task force whose objective was to apprehend the person’s responsibilities. When these attacks happened the case had received many media attentions and the suspect was known as the Prime Time Rapist. Prior to the arrest of Cooper, the task force determined that when they arrested Cooper.
They would continue to ask him questions despite his request for silence or for an attorney. Then Cooper also contends that it is the accepted procedure of the Tuscan Police Department to ignore the defendant’s invocation (the act of appealing for help) of his Miranda rights. There was a conflicting…show more content… The court held further that Cooper’s statements hindered any insanity defense and therefore supported a constitutional violation.
The court concluded, based on Miranda, that Cooper’s statements were sufficient to constitute a breach of his right to remain silent. The court reasoned that Miranda does not distinguish between statements which are direct confessions and statements which are partial admissions of an offense, since both type of statements are incriminating.
The court held that the Task’s forces were irrelevant, and concluded that its attempt to force Cooper’s confession was an attempt to compel him to be a witness against himself. Court reasoned that Miranda extends the Fifth Amendment right to interrogations in polices stations as well as the courtroom itself. The court emphasized that Miranda warnings are not prophylactic safeguards, but protect a substantive constitutional right; the right to remain
