There have been many case decisions throughout police history that have impacted police procedures. Three such cases that effect policing today are the Terry versus Ohio case, the Miranda versus Arizona case, and the Mapp versus Ohio case.
The case that allowed for the police to perform a stop and frisk was that which involved a Terry and Richard Chilton. It was Detective Martin McFadden who observed the suspicious activity of these three men and decided to approach them. McFadden decided to stop and frisk each man. During the search, guns were found in the possession of Terry and Chilton. Both were arrested and convicted (Dempsey, 2005). Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held, 8-1, that a person may be detained without probable cause to make an arrest if there is reasonable suspicion to make an arrest. A frisk may be justified when its purpose is to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for assault on an officer (Rush, 2003).
The case Miranda versus Arizona has made an impact on how suspected individuals are interrogated. The case involved an 18-year-old female victim who was raped and released by a 23-years-old male named Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was arrested in connection with the rape. Miranda was known to have a police record dating back to when he was 14 years old. After being arrested, Miranda was identified by the victim in a line up. He was then taken to the interrogation room where he eventually confessed to the crime with no attorney present. Miranda was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. It was upon an appeal that the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda’s confession was inadmissible. The Supreme Court ruled that confessions are by nature inherently coercive and so custodial interrogation makes defendants’ confessions compelled, not voluntarily. The courts felt that the interrogations violated individual’s Fifth Amendment rights (Dempsey, 2005).
It is with this case in mind that the police recite a person’s Miranda rights. Before interrogation, a person is advised that he or she have the right to remain silent, anything he or she says can be used against him or her, he or she has the right to consult a lawyer and have that lawyer and have the lawyer present, and if he or she can’t afford an attorney, one will be provided (Dempsey, 2005).
Another case important to police was Mapp versus Ohio. The case involved woman, Dollree Mapp, whose home was suspected as the place where police thought they might find Virgil Ogletree, wanted in connection with a bombing at the home of boxing promoter, Donald King. At the first attempt to search, police were denied entry on the advice of Mapp’s lawyer. Within three hours, the police returned with additional officers. Police forced entry, denying Mapp’s lawyer entry. A paper purported to be a warrant was presented to Mapp on demand. Mapp was handcuffed when she became “belligerent” and the entire house was searched. Pornographer literature was found and Mapp was arrested for possessing obscene materials. The warrant was never produced in court and the Supreme Court reversed Mapp’s conviction based on the police violating her Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court then extended the exclusionary rule to all state courts and law enforcement personnel. The Supreme Court felt that the exclusionary rule extended prevented individuals from rude invasions of privacy by state officers. The individuals get no more than what the Constitution guarantees and the police officer no less than which is honest law enforcement that is entitled (Dempsey, 2005).
References
Dempsey, J.S. & Forst, L.S. (2005). Introduction to policing (3rd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. ISBN: 0-534-64290-X
Rush, George E. (2003). The Dictionary of Criminal Justice (6th ed.).
McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, a division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
