Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Cases and the Effects on Interaction of Criminal Suspects - Assignment Example

Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Cases and their Effects on Interaction of Criminal Suspects and Law Enforcement Officers Introduction Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona are two Supreme Court cases that substantially altered the way law enforcement officials are allowed to interact with criminal suspects in America. They changed the legal climate by clarifying constitutional guarantees on the liberty of individuals within the arena of criminal justice. They involve issues that many of people have now known as rights. Before these cases were tried in the Supreme Court, there was a lot of power abuse by the police. Miranda vs. Arizona Miranda was arrested due to circumstantial evidence that accused him of kidnapping and rapping an 18-year –old woman, 10 days before his arrest. He signed a statement pleading guilty of the offence without knowing his right to counsel. The supreme court of Arizona affirmed the court’s decision to admit the confession. However, Earl Warren, the chief justice ruled that due to the interrogation nature, where he was not informed of his rights by the police, such evidence of his confession could not be used against him, since he was not aware of his rights and hence, he had waived them (Brooks 177). From the Miranda vs. Arizona case, police advertisement of the rights of the criminal suspect before the start of questioning was brought about by the Miranda warning. The court has since reiterated the Miranda ruling that all case questioning must cease if a suspect in custody is being questioned when he has requested a lawyer. The 1992 Miranda rights have effectively been extended to US immigrants. Since then, illegal aliens who are arrested each year must read the Miranda warnings and be read for their rights (Leo and George, 325). Legal officers have to arrest a suspect and listen to them without asking them questions while talking. On the other hand, police may question the suspect without the warnings of Miranda even in the confines of a police station. This is however only applicable when the police officer is questioning a person who is neither a suspect nor under arrest. Since all suspects must be read for their individual rights, the court has subsequently ruled that any waiver of the same rights must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent (Gerald 243). Mapp V. Ohio Prior to the 1960s, the United States Supreme Court only infrequently intruded on all criminal justice system’s operations at the local and state levels (Bloom 245). In 1961, Earl Warren, the chief justice of the supreme court made a decision about a case that forever changed the face of law enforcement in America (Brooks 12). That was the Mapp v. Ohio, in 1961. The decisions made exclusionary rule that were applied in all criminal prosecutions at state level. The judges said that, with little doubt, the evidence used against Mapp was illegal and could not be used in any law court against her in America. The Mapp V. Ohio precedents that were established were firmly against the Weeks and Silverstone principles (Bloom 235). The former precedents ensured that police officers are accountable at all levels to the law. The Miranda Arizona case of 1978 led to the amendment of police officers requirements, where they are not allowed to delay investigations as this would put their lives as well as those of others in danger. In this case, it was ruled that police officers should have enough evidence of the criminal activity and further ensure that it is legally obtained. For example, in 1991, a black man, Rodney King was caught on a videotape being beaten with nightsticks by LAPD, and was shocked with electric stun guns twice, punched and kicked. This police torture left him with 11 fractures in the skull, broken ankle, crushed cheekbone and missing teeth. However, such cases are no longer reported today since the Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v Arizona Supreme Court cases. The police forces have become highly disciplined and handle criminal suspects with respect and dignity. Such torture was especially administered by the whites against the blacks. Today, the law is for everyone irrespective of color or race. The US constitution is designed in the bill of rights to protect its citizens against police power abuse. Unfortunately, the legal environment in today’s America is more complicated than the way it was, 40 years ago (Mapp v. Ohio). During that time, state and local law enforcement was based on tried-and-true methods of looking for the suspect, arresting and interrogating them, thus leaving very little room for individual rights’ recognition. However, in 1960, the Supreme Court in US increased the rate at which individual rights were guaranteed in the criminal prosecution face. Individual Rights The peak of emphasis for the guarantee of individual rights in Supreme Court was emphasized in the decision, which was reached in the Miranda v. Arizona supreme cases in 1966. The decisions established the “rights advertisement, for all suspects, which was the famous police requirement. Few guilty people were allowed to go for the protection of American majority rights. For the last few decades, decisions of the Supreme Court have begun a reversal of the advances of the warren-era in the individual rights area. By making some of the rules and restraints of Warren courts exceptional and allowing the suspects to make emergency questioning before their rights are read, the supreme court that is now changed has appreciated the realities of the police attending their daily work and the importance of ensuring public safety (Bloom 276). Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona also brought about marked change in individual rights. After these supreme cases, people who feel that they did not receive dignity and process in their handling by the justice system under the new law can now appeal for redress to the courts. Appeals like those ones are normally based on issues of procedure and are not dependent on innocent or guilt considerations. The supreme cases also triggered a change in the requirements for the due process. Justice officials respect individual rights of the criminal suspects throughout the process of criminal justice. Due process pertains three major areas: arrest, search and seizure, and interrogation. These areas were addressed by the Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona. Another way in which the supreme cases altered interaction of criminal suspects and law enforcement officers is behavior control of police officers especially on their failure to get search or arrest warrants specifically in cases where arrest may cause acquisition of statements that are incriminating to physical evidence seizure. In this case, Supreme Court’s decisions were binding to the decision made in the Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona cases. Conclusion The lesson that the American law enforcement and criminal suspects leant is that the suspect must know all their individual rights before signing any confessions while arrested. On the other hand, legal officers must therefore inform criminal suspects about all their individual rights before such signing. Police officers must also file legal evidence against the suspect, that is, evidence that is legally gathered. However, the decisions made in the two cases, by the chief justice of the high court, have surely transformed the court environment in America. Work Cited Gerald, Caplan. Questioning Miranda, Vanderbilt Law Review 38. New York; New York Press, 1985. Print. Bloom, Brodin. Criminal Procedure 2nd ed. United States Reports [Supreme Court]. Princeton Hall. Princeton Publishers. 2006. Vol. 384, pp. 436ff. Print. Brooks, Peter. Troubling Confessions: Speaking Guilt in Law and Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Print. Leo, Richard. & George, Thomas III, eds. The Miranda Debate: Law, Justice, and Policing. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1998. Print. Read More