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
A garnishee order involves a court-ordered garnishment of a debtor's wages or property in order to collect a debt. Unpaid wages, bank accounts and some personal property are the usual items garnished.Full Answer >
A legal affidavit is a printed or written statement prepared and signed by a witness or party before a court of law or some other authority that possesses the power to witness an oath. An affidavit has specific features and details that must be present, and must be in a form that is accepted by legal clerks, attorneys and prosecutors. Affidavits filed in court must be served to all parties.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 >
In 1965, Miranda v. Arizona created a specific set of procedures for police interrogations and evidence, according to the Oyez Project. The case was one of a series involving protections for the accused found in the Fifth Amendment.Full Answer >