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
If a court judgment is not paid ,the debtor can start collection proceedings. The debtor can file collection proceedings if payment is not made within 30 days.Full Answer >
California Civil Code, section 1542, allows for a creditor to collect from a debtor even after a lawsuit has been settled. Under this section of the California Civil Code, if a circumstance or claim exists without the creditor's knowledge at the time of the settlement that materially affects the creditor, the debtor can still be legally liable to provide additional restitution, according to LegalInfo.ca.gov.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 >