What is Miranda? Your Rights Explained [2024]

The Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court case established the now-familiar Miranda rights which protect individuals during custodial interrogations. These rights, often recited by law enforcement officers, inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and their Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. A clear understanding of what is a Miranda, including when these rights apply and how they can be invoked, remains crucial for anyone interacting with the justice system. The American Bar Association offers resources and guidance on understanding these protections, helping to clarify the complexities of Miranda in 2024.

Understanding Your Miranda Rights: A Citizen’s Imperative

The Miranda Rights, a cornerstone of the American legal system, stand as a shield protecting individuals during police interrogations. These rights, often recited in television dramas and legal thrillers, represent a critical safeguard against self-incrimination and ensure fair treatment under the law.

Understanding the essence of Miranda is not just for lawyers or law enforcement officials; it is a civic duty for every American.

The Significance of Miranda

Miranda Rights, born from the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, guarantee individuals the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney during police questioning. These rights are invoked when a suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation.

The underlying principle is to prevent coercive tactics by law enforcement that could lead to involuntary confessions. This protection is essential to upholding the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination.

Navigating the Labyrinth: The Purpose of This Overview

This article serves as a comprehensive guide to the Miranda Rights. It aims to illuminate their historical origins, dissect their core components, and explore their practical implications.

By providing a clear and concise overview, this guide seeks to empower citizens with the knowledge necessary to understand and assert their rights.

Why This Matters to You

Knowledge of one’s rights is a powerful tool. Understanding the Miranda Rights enables individuals to make informed decisions during encounters with law enforcement.

It ensures that confessions are truly voluntary and not the result of coercion or misunderstanding. This knowledge is particularly crucial for vulnerable populations who may be more susceptible to pressure during interrogations.

Furthermore, a well-informed citizenry strengthens the integrity of the legal system by holding law enforcement accountable to constitutional standards. In essence, grasping the Miranda Rights is not just about personal protection; it’s about upholding the principles of justice and fairness for all.

Understanding Your Miranda Rights: A Citizen’s Imperative
The Miranda Rights, a cornerstone of the American legal system, stand as a shield protecting individuals during police interrogations. These rights, often recited in television dramas and legal thrillers, represent a critical safeguard against self-incrimination and ensure fair treatment under the law. To fully appreciate their significance, we must delve into the historical context that gave rise to these essential protections.

The Genesis of Miranda: A Historical Perspective

The Miranda Rights did not emerge in a vacuum. They were the direct result of a legal challenge that exposed vulnerabilities in the existing system and prompted the Supreme Court to establish new safeguards. Understanding the Miranda v. Arizona case is crucial to grasping the importance of these rights.

The Case of Ernesto Miranda

The story begins with Ernesto Miranda, a man arrested in 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona, on suspicion of kidnapping and rape.

Following his arrest, Miranda was interrogated by police officers. During the interrogation, he confessed to the crime.

Crucially, he was never informed of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney.

This confession was then used as evidence against him at trial.

The Supreme Court’s Intervention

Miranda’s case eventually reached the Supreme Court, challenging the admissibility of his confession. The Court recognized that the interrogation environment is inherently coercive.

This meant that statements obtained without proper warnings could not be considered truly voluntary.

The Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established the now-familiar Miranda Rights.

Key Figures: Earl Warren and Thurgood Marshall

Chief Justice Earl Warren, who penned the majority opinion, played a pivotal role in shaping the Court’s decision.

Warren argued that individuals must be informed of their rights to ensure a fair and just legal process.

Thurgood Marshall, then serving as the Solicitor General, also contributed significantly to the legal arguments supporting the establishment of Miranda Rights.

His previous work as a civil rights attorney gave him unique insight.

He advocated for protecting vulnerable individuals from potential abuse during interrogation.

The Rationale Behind the Decision

The Supreme Court’s rationale was rooted in the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.

The Court recognized that the coercive nature of police interrogations could compel individuals to confess to crimes they did not commit.

By requiring law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights, the Court sought to level the playing field and ensure that confessions were truly voluntary.

The Miranda decision aimed to protect the constitutional rights of all individuals, regardless of their background or knowledge of the law. It ensures a more equitable justice system.

Decoding the Miranda Warning: The Core Components

Following the historical context and legal foundation of Miranda v. Arizona, it’s crucial to dissect the actual Miranda Warning. This is the precise set of statements that law enforcement must convey to a suspect during custodial interrogation. Understanding these components is paramount for every citizen. It empowers them to exercise their rights effectively and navigate interactions with law enforcement with clarity and informed consent.

Unpacking the Rights: A Detailed Look

The Miranda Warning comprises several distinct rights. Each serves a critical function in protecting individuals from self-incrimination. These components are non-negotiable and must be communicated clearly and understandably. Any ambiguity or omission can render the entire interrogation inadmissible in court.

The Right to Remain Silent

This is arguably the most fundamental component of the Miranda Rights. It guarantees that a suspect cannot be compelled to speak or answer questions during an interrogation.

The suspect has the absolute right to refuse to answer any questions. This silence cannot be used against them in court to infer guilt.

This right stems directly from the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. It safeguards individuals from being forced to provide evidence that could lead to their conviction.

The Right to an Attorney

This right guarantees that a suspect has the right to have an attorney present during questioning. This ensures they have legal counsel to advise them on their rights and the potential consequences of their statements.

If a suspect cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to them by the court, free of charge. This ensures equal access to justice regardless of financial status.

The presence of an attorney acts as a safeguard against coercion and ensures the suspect’s rights are protected throughout the interrogation process.

Understanding the Consequences of Waiver

The Miranda Warning also includes a critical explanation of what it means to waive these rights. Suspects must understand that any statements they make can and will be used against them in a court of law.

This element is crucial because it ensures that any decision to speak to law enforcement is made knowingly and intelligently. The suspect needs to be fully aware of the potential repercussions of their statements.

They need to comprehend the gravity of their decision. This involves the possibility of these statements becoming crucial evidence for the prosecution.

The Standard Miranda Warning and the Miranda Card

To ensure consistency and minimize ambiguity, law enforcement agencies typically use a standard Miranda Warning. This is often printed on a card known as a "Miranda Card".

The card contains the precise wording of the Miranda Rights. Officers are trained to read it verbatim to suspects. This ensures that the warning is delivered accurately and completely.

While the specific wording may vary slightly between jurisdictions, the core components remain consistent. This includes the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the understanding of consequences.

The use of a Miranda Card acts as a form of documentation, demonstrating that the suspect was properly informed of their rights prior to questioning. This helps to prevent later disputes about whether the Miranda Warning was adequately conveyed.

When Miranda Applies: Custodial Interrogation and Beyond

Following the historical context and legal foundation of Miranda v. Arizona, it’s crucial to dissect the actual Miranda Warning. This is the precise set of statements that law enforcement must convey to a suspect during custodial interrogation. Understanding these components is paramount for every citizen.

Defining Custodial Interrogation

At the heart of Miranda Rights lies the concept of custodial interrogation. This term, often misunderstood, dictates precisely when law enforcement officers are obligated to issue the Miranda Warning.

Custodial interrogation is not simply any questioning by the police. It encompasses a specific set of circumstances.

It occurs when a person is both in custody and subject to interrogation. Both conditions must be met for Miranda to apply.

What Constitutes Custody?

Custody, in this context, signifies that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. This assessment is objective.

It isn’t based on the subjective beliefs of the individual being questioned or the officer’s intent. Factors considered include the location of the questioning, the length of the interrogation, and the degree of restraint placed on the individual.

A traffic stop, for instance, is generally not considered custody. The detention is usually brief and for a limited purpose.

However, a traffic stop can escalate into a custodial situation if the officer’s actions create a situation where a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave.

What Constitutes Interrogation?

Interrogation, as defined by the Supreme Court, refers not only to express questioning but also to "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect."

This definition extends beyond direct questioning. It also includes tactics that are designed to induce a confession.

For example, confronting a suspect with incriminating evidence or presenting a scenario designed to provoke a response could be considered interrogation.

Scenarios Where Miranda Applies

Miranda Rights are most commonly associated with police stations. This is where formal interrogations often take place.

However, the location is not the determining factor. Custodial interrogation can occur anywhere: in a suspect’s home, on the street, or in a police vehicle. The crucial element is whether the person is in custody and being interrogated.

If both conditions are met, Miranda Rights must be read before any questioning begins. Failure to do so can render any statements obtained inadmissible in court.

When Miranda Might Not Apply

There are numerous situations where Miranda Rights do not apply. It is important to know what those are.

One frequent example is voluntary statements. If a person volunteers information to the police without being questioned, those statements are generally admissible, even if Miranda Rights were not given.

Another key exception involves situations where a person is not in custody. For example, if an officer is conducting a general on-the-scene investigation and asks questions to determine what happened, Miranda may not be required. The individual is free to leave at any time.

Furthermore, routine booking questions – such as name, address, and date of birth – typically do not trigger Miranda Rights. These questions are considered administrative and not designed to elicit incriminating responses.

Finally, it’s important to remember that Miranda Rights only apply to testimonial evidence. Physical evidence discovered as a result of a voluntary statement, even if obtained without Miranda warnings, may still be admissible.

Waivers and Their Challenges: Giving Up Your Rights

Following the determination of when Miranda Rights are applicable, the critical question becomes: what happens when a suspect chooses to relinquish those protections? Waiving one’s Miranda Rights is a pivotal decision in any criminal proceeding, carrying significant consequences. The validity of such a waiver hinges on specific legal requirements, and challenges to these waivers are common, placing the defense and prosecution in adversarial roles.

Understanding the Waiver of Miranda Rights

To waive Miranda Rights means that a suspect knowingly and voluntarily gives up their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present during questioning. This essentially opens the door for law enforcement to question the suspect, and any statements made can be used against them in court.

However, not all waivers are created equal. The courts have established stringent criteria to ensure that a waiver is indeed valid and that the suspect’s constitutional rights are protected.

The Three Pillars of a Valid Waiver

For a Miranda waiver to stand up in court, it must meet three key requirements: it must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. These terms are not merely legal jargon; they represent fundamental safeguards against coercion and misunderstanding.

Voluntariness: Freedom from Coercion

A voluntary waiver means that the decision to speak with law enforcement must be free from any coercion, threats, or promises. Police cannot use physical force, psychological manipulation, or other forms of duress to compel a suspect to waive their rights.

The court will examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the waiver was truly voluntary.

Knowing: Comprehension of Rights

A knowing waiver requires that the suspect understands the rights they are giving up. This means that the suspect must be aware of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present. Law enforcement officers are responsible for ensuring that suspects understand these rights, typically by reading the Miranda Warning clearly and providing an opportunity for questions.

Intelligence: Appreciation of Consequences

An intelligent waiver goes a step further, requiring that the suspect appreciates the consequences of waiving their rights. This means that the suspect must understand that any statements they make can be used against them in court. The suspect must have a reasonable understanding of how the legal process works.

This does not mean the suspect needs to have legal expertise, only that they understand their statements have consequences.

Challenging Waivers: The Adversarial Process

Challenges to Miranda waivers are a frequent occurrence in criminal cases. Defense attorneys often argue that a waiver was not voluntary, knowing, or intelligent, seeking to suppress any statements made by the suspect.

Prosecutors, on the other hand, must prove that the waiver met all the necessary legal requirements.

The Role of the Defense Attorney

Defense attorneys play a crucial role in protecting the rights of their clients. They meticulously review the circumstances surrounding the waiver, looking for any evidence of coercion, misunderstanding, or lack of appreciation of the consequences.

They may file motions to suppress evidence, arguing that the waiver was invalid and that any statements obtained should be excluded from trial.

The Role of the Prosecutor

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to demonstrate that a Miranda waiver was valid. Prosecutors must present evidence that the suspect was properly advised of their rights, that they understood those rights, and that they voluntarily chose to waive them.

They may call law enforcement officers to testify about the circumstances surrounding the waiver and present written waiver forms as evidence.

In conclusion, waiving Miranda Rights is a consequential decision with lasting ramifications. The legal system has established strict standards to protect suspects from involuntary, unknowing, or unintelligent waivers. The adversarial process, involving both defense attorneys and prosecutors, ensures that these standards are rigorously scrutinized.

Exceptions to the Rule: The Public Safety Exception

Following the determination of when Miranda Rights are applicable, the critical question becomes: what happens when a suspect chooses to relinquish those protections? Waiving one’s Miranda Rights is a pivotal decision in any criminal proceeding, carrying significant consequences. The validity of such waivers is subject to scrutiny, but, under specific circumstances, the Miranda rule itself may be set aside.

The Narrow Scope of Exceptions to Miranda

While the Miranda ruling established a clear framework for protecting suspects’ rights during custodial interrogations, the Supreme Court has recognized limited exceptions to this rule. These exceptions are narrowly tailored and grounded in the principle that overriding concerns may, in certain situations, outweigh the individual’s right to remain silent and have an attorney present.

The most prominent of these is the Public Safety Exception.

The Public Safety Exception Defined

The Public Safety Exception allows law enforcement officers to question a suspect without first providing Miranda warnings when doing so is necessary to protect public safety. This exception, established in New York v. Quarles (1984), recognizes that there are situations where the immediate need to secure public safety outweighs the need to protect an individual’s Fifth Amendment rights.

The Court reasoned that in such exigent circumstances, the focus shifts from gathering incriminating evidence to neutralizing an immediate threat.

Scenarios Invoking the Public Safety Exception

This exception is not a blanket license to disregard Miranda. Its application is limited to scenarios where there is an imminent threat to public safety.

Consider these possible examples:

• The Unaccounted Weapon: If a suspect is apprehended near a school after reports of gunfire, officers may ask about the location of the weapon before reading Miranda rights, to prevent a child from finding it.

• The Bomb Threat: If a suspect is apprehended in connection with a bomb threat, officers can inquire about the location of the device before Miranda warnings are given, in an attempt to disarm the device.

In these scenarios, the immediate danger outweighs the requirement to advise the suspect of their rights before questioning. The questioning must be focused on resolving the immediate threat.

The Rationale Behind Prioritizing Safety

The Public Safety Exception is rooted in a pragmatic understanding of law enforcement’s role in protecting communities. The exception acknowledges that delaying questioning to provide Miranda warnings could have catastrophic consequences in certain situations. The need to locate a weapon, defuse a bomb, or prevent an imminent attack justifies the temporary suspension of Miranda requirements.

This is not to suggest a devaluation of individual rights, but rather a careful balancing of those rights against the collective need for safety and security.

Potential for Misapplication and Legal Scrutiny

Despite its necessity, the Public Safety Exception is prone to misinterpretation and potential abuse. Law enforcement must carefully assess whether the circumstances truly warrant invoking the exception. The courts will closely scrutinize the objective reasonableness of an officer’s belief that public safety was at risk.

Defense attorneys will often challenge the invocation of the Public Safety Exception, arguing that the circumstances did not justify the failure to provide Miranda warnings. The burden rests on the prosecution to demonstrate that the exception was properly applied based on the totality of the circumstances.

Ultimately, the Public Safety Exception represents a necessary, yet carefully circumscribed, departure from the Miranda rule. Its application demands careful consideration, sound judgment, and a commitment to protecting both individual rights and the safety of the public.

Constitutional Foundations: The Fifth and Sixth Amendments

Following the examination of exceptions to the Miranda rule, it’s essential to understand the bedrock upon which these rights are built. The Miranda Rights are not arbitrary pronouncements; they are firmly rooted in the United States Constitution, specifically the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. These amendments provide the fundamental safeguards that protect individuals from governmental overreach during criminal investigations.

This section will explore how the Miranda Rights directly relate to and uphold these constitutional principles, ensuring a fairer and more just legal process.

The Fifth Amendment: Shield Against Self-Incrimination

At its core, the Fifth Amendment ensures that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This clause, known as the privilege against self-incrimination, is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence. It reflects a deep-seated belief that the government bears the burden of proving guilt, rather than compelling individuals to provide evidence against themselves.

The Miranda warnings directly operationalize this Fifth Amendment protection. By informing suspects of their right to remain silent, they are empowered to avoid unintentionally incriminating themselves during police questioning.

Without this knowledge, individuals might feel pressured to speak, potentially confessing to crimes they did not commit or providing information that could be misconstrued.

The Miranda Rights serve as a crucial safeguard, ensuring that any statement made by a suspect is truly voluntary and not the product of coercion.

The Sixth Amendment: Guarantee of Counsel

The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused person "the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." This right to counsel is essential for ensuring a fair trial, as legal representation can navigate the complexities of the legal system, protect the accused’s rights, and present a strong defense.

The Miranda Rights extend this protection to the pre-trial interrogation phase. By informing suspects of their right to an attorney, and providing them with the option of having one appointed if they cannot afford one, the Miranda Rights ensure that individuals are not left to face questioning without legal guidance.

This is particularly critical, as the interrogation room can be a high-pressure environment, where even innocent individuals may inadvertently make statements that harm their case.

The presence of counsel ensures that suspects understand their rights, can make informed decisions about whether to speak to the police, and are protected from coercive interrogation tactics.

Upholding Constitutional Principles

The Miranda Rights act as a crucial bridge between the abstract guarantees of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the practical realities of police investigations. They provide a tangible mechanism for ensuring that these constitutional rights are respected and protected.

By requiring law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights before questioning, the Miranda rule promotes fairness and prevents the erosion of fundamental freedoms.

Without the Miranda Rights, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments would be significantly weakened, leaving individuals vulnerable to coercion and self-incrimination. The Miranda decision reflects the Supreme Court’s recognition that these constitutional principles require proactive protection, particularly in the context of police interrogations.

In conclusion, the Miranda Rights are not merely procedural rules; they are essential safeguards that uphold the core constitutional principles enshrined in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. They ensure that individuals are treated fairly and with respect during criminal investigations, and that their fundamental rights are protected against governmental overreach.

Suppression of Evidence: The Consequences of Non-Compliance

Following the examination of the constitutional foundations of the Miranda Rights, it’s vital to understand the practical consequences when law enforcement fails to adhere to these principles. One of the most significant repercussions is the suppression of evidence, a legal mechanism designed to safeguard individual rights by excluding improperly obtained evidence from trial. This section delves into the intricacies of suppression, its impact on legal proceedings, and the crucial role judges play in upholding these protections.

The Exclusionary Rule and Miranda Violations

The concept of suppressing evidence stems from the Exclusionary Rule, a judicially created doctrine that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial. This rule acts as a powerful deterrent against police misconduct, ensuring that law enforcement respects constitutional boundaries when gathering evidence.

In the context of Miranda violations, suppression typically applies to statements made by a suspect during a custodial interrogation without first being properly advised of their rights. If a suspect is taken into custody and interrogated without being Mirandized, any statements they make are generally inadmissible in court as direct evidence of their guilt.

Types of Evidence Subject to Suppression

It’s crucial to understand that suppression can extend beyond just the initial statements made by a suspect.

• Direct Evidence: This includes the suspect’s actual confession or incriminating statements obtained in violation of Miranda.

• Derivative Evidence (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree): This refers to any secondary evidence discovered as a result of the illegally obtained statements. For example, if a suspect reveals the location of a murder weapon during an un-Mirandized interrogation, both the statement and the weapon itself might be suppressed.

However, proving the causal link between the illegal interrogation and the derivative evidence can be complex and is often subject to legal debate. The prosecution may argue that the evidence would have inevitably been discovered through other independent means, thus mitigating the taint of the Miranda violation.

The Judge’s Role in Admissibility

Ultimately, the decision on whether to suppress evidence rests with the presiding judge. Defense attorneys typically file motions to suppress, arguing that the evidence was obtained in violation of the suspect’s Miranda Rights.

The judge then conducts a hearing, often referred to as a suppression hearing, to determine the facts surrounding the interrogation and the circumstances under which the evidence was obtained.

During the hearing, both the prosecution and the defense present evidence, including witness testimony (often from the arresting officers and the suspect). The judge must weigh the credibility of the witnesses, assess the totality of the circumstances, and apply the relevant legal standards to determine whether a Miranda violation occurred.

Factors Considered During Suppression Hearings

Judges consider several factors when evaluating a motion to suppress. These include:

• Custody: Was the suspect in custody at the time of the interrogation? Custody implies a significant deprivation of freedom, akin to a formal arrest.

• Interrogation: Was the suspect subjected to interrogation, meaning questioning or actions by law enforcement that were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response?

• Miranda Warning: Was the suspect properly advised of their Miranda Rights before the interrogation began?

• Waiver: Did the suspect knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive their Miranda Rights?

If the judge finds that a Miranda violation occurred, the evidence will be suppressed, meaning it cannot be used against the suspect at trial.

Impact of Suppression on Criminal Cases

The suppression of evidence can have a significant impact on a criminal case. In some instances, it may lead to the dismissal of charges if the suppressed evidence is crucial to the prosecution’s case.

Even if the case proceeds to trial, the absence of the suppressed evidence can weaken the prosecution’s ability to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The exclusionary rule, and the suppression of evidence that flows from it, serves as a vital safeguard protecting individual rights against potential government overreach. It reinforces the principle that the ends do not justify the means, and that even in the pursuit of justice, the Constitution must be respected.

Implementation and Impact: Miranda in Practice

Following the examination of the constitutional foundations of the Miranda Rights, it’s vital to understand the practical consequences when law enforcement fails to adhere to these principles. One of the most significant repercussions is the suppression of evidence, a legal mechanism designed to protect individual rights. But what does Miranda look like in the real world, and what is its actual impact on the justice system?

Miranda’s Influence on Law Enforcement

The Miranda v. Arizona decision fundamentally reshaped police procedures. Law enforcement agencies have been compelled to integrate comprehensive training programs to ensure officers are well-versed in the proper administration of Miranda warnings.

These programs often involve detailed instruction on when the warnings are required, how to deliver them clearly and understandably, and how to document that they were given. The goal is to minimize the risk of violating a suspect’s rights.

Strict protocols are now in place, often including the use of standardized Miranda cards, which officers read verbatim to ensure consistency and accuracy.

The Double-Edged Sword of Self-Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves. Miranda serves as a practical safeguard of this right during police interrogations.

However, the decision to invoke or waive Miranda rights can have profound consequences for a case.

A suspect’s silence after being read their rights cannot be used against them in court. Conversely, a voluntary confession can be powerful evidence for the prosecution.

Practical Considerations and Challenges

While the principles behind Miranda are clear, their application in real-world scenarios can be complex. A key challenge lies in ensuring that suspects truly understand their rights, especially those with limited education, language barriers, or mental impairments.

The use of waiver forms aims to document that a suspect has knowingly and voluntarily relinquished their Miranda rights. However, the validity of these waivers can be contested, often leading to legal battles over whether the suspect genuinely comprehended the implications of their decision.

Defense attorneys often scrutinize the circumstances surrounding an interrogation, looking for any signs of coercion, deception, or misunderstanding that could invalidate a waiver.

The Ongoing Debate

The Miranda ruling continues to spark debate. Some argue that it unduly hinders law enforcement and allows guilty individuals to escape justice. Others maintain that it is a crucial protection against police abuse and ensures fairness in the criminal justice system.

The reality is that Miranda has become deeply embedded in American legal culture. It serves as a constant reminder of the importance of safeguarding individual rights, even in the pursuit of justice. The case continues to influence policy and remains an important aspect of the legal system.

So, there you have it – a quick rundown of what Miranda is and what rights it protects. It’s good to know your rights, especially when dealing with law enforcement. Hopefully, this article cleared up any confusion and gives you a better understanding of your protections under the law!