The case of Miranda v. Arizona places some limitations on when a confession may be admitted at trial. Please answer the following questions. 1) What are the two major circumstances that must be present to trigger Miranda warning requirements, and why are they important? If Miranda warnings are given appropriately there is a presumption that the subsequent confession is voluntary. However, even when Miranda warnings are provided, or perhaps not even required, the confession may still be ruled involuntary under the facts of a certain case. 2) What are some things that the Court might consider when deciding if a confession was given voluntarily or not? 3) Why is this important when considering the exclusionary rule, specifically concerning (a) impeachment, and (b) fruit of the poisonous tree? 4) Finally, do you agree with the limitations Miranda places on law enforcement, and are they valid in today’s society? Should we simply go back to a voluntariness standard, and why or why not?