The mini-Miranda law refers to Section 807, Part 11 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as amended in September of 1996, requiring debt collectors to provide a certain statement in their initial contact with a debtor. It requires the collectors to identify themselves as attempting to collect a debt and inform the debtor that they use any information they obtain for that purpose.Know More
The law requires debt collectors to make this initial statement on both phone and written communications. After they make the full statement once, they are required to let the individual know they are a debt collector.
While the act does not officially call this statement the mini-Miranda, the warning is similar in nature to the Miranda rights required for use by law enforcement informing a suspect of his right to remain silent, the right to an attorney and the right to a court-appointed attorney if he is unable to afford one otherwise.
In adopting this law, Congress recognized the stress unfair collection practices cause consumers. In the background for adopting the law, it says that such unfair practices lead to unnecessary bankruptcy, marital instability, the loss of jobs and invasion of the consumer's privacy. The intent of the act is to prevent unfair practices while allowing collectors to follow standardized, fair rules, including the use of the mini-Miranda.Learn more about Law
Under Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution, the president has the authority to veto legislation that is passed by Congress. After receiving a legislative bill, the president is given 10 days to sign the bill into law or to veto it, either by regular or pocket veto.Full Answer >
The Miranda doctrine, more typically referred to as "Miranda rights," is a set of rights applicable to police detainees under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Miranda rights were established in the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda rights are the basis of police procedure for the detention of suspects.Full Answer >
About.com explains that the primary outcome of Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) was the creation of "Miranda rights," which must be explained to an individual suspected of a crime before questioning by the authorities. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney's presence, among others.Full Answer >
The dissenting opinions in Miranda v. Arizona stated that the rights granted to suspects in the majority decision had no support in the U.S. Constitution or English common law. The dissenting justices felt the court was overreacting and were concerned that its decision would compromise the efficiency of interrogation in law enforcement.Full Answer >