[Rsevor]

What is the stastical rate that police officers solved crimes before and after the Miranda decision?

[Fr_Chuck]

Not really a valid conclusion, since after the use of miranda science has advanced in DNA, testing of fabrics, better use of digital images, a new DNA data base, and even advanced in fingerprinting.

So there are far to many other factors when we look at the rates of things solved.

[Doc_Jim]

What is the stastical rate that police officers solved crimes before and after the Miranda decision?

Rsevor,

The Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona) warnings do not have any impact on the solving of crimes. The warnings (which I am sure almost everyone knows by now) are only for those individuals who are suspected of committing a crime. (when mere suspicion turns into restraint to free movement - arrest) In essence, it is a warning that the suspect need not provide evidence as to their guilt (the old 5th Amendment right). Law enforcement is permitted to arrest a person if the person commits a misdemeanor in the presence of the law enforcement officer. In this case, the offender need not make a statement and the law enforcement officer presents his eye witness evidence of the offense to the court. In the case of felonies, the law enforcement officer executes the arrest based on what is called "probable cause" that a crime has been committed and the suspect committed the crime. In our system of criminal justice, the state must prove those two beliefs "beyond a reasonable doubt". The Miranda warnings ensure that the state must "play by the rules". Crimes are solved by evidence, and evidence must stand up in court under its own merits. The merits of evidence collected in violation of Miranda would not stand up in court, therefore Miranda has practically no impact on the solving of crimes.