The U.S. Supreme Court, headed by Earl Warren as its chief justice for nearly two decades in the 1950s-1960s, was responsible for several landmark rulings expanding the federal and judicial power and promoting civil rights and liberties. The Warren Court’s rulings also have a long-lasting impact on everyday police work since they significantly affected the criminal justice process, including arrests, evidence search, and court proceedings.
Perhaps, one of the most widely known implications of the Warren Court’s rulings is the so-called Miranda warning that features in many police detective films and shows. The Miranda warning refers to the criminal suspects’ right to silence, and police officers are required to give this warning to anyone in their custody before interrogation. Police also inform the suspects that they have the right to an attorney that will be provided to them by the state if they cannot afford one. Otherwise, any statement made by the suspect is not admissible to be used against them during criminal proceedings. The Miranda warning requirement originates from the Court’s 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona, which proved to be one of its most controversial cases, with the opponents of the Miranda warning calling for it to be repealed (Candela, 2011).
Decisions made by the Court also affected the evidence search and collection procedure followed by the police. The Supreme Court relied on the Fourteenth Amendment, which addresses the U.S. citizenship rights to make constitutional rights applicable at the state level. This decision was adopted in the 1961 Mapp v. Ohio case which many believed has revolutionized prosecution and police practices. In particular, the Court referred to the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures to extend the Exclusionary Rule to the states. Thus, evidence collected in violation of the suspect’s constitutional rights is frequently inadmissible in court proceedings, meaning that police have to obtain a search warrant to inspect the suspect’s belongings (Maclin, 2012).
Furthermore, the Warren Court aimed to ensure that criminal defendants enjoy fair trial and due process which found a reflection in several of its decisions. While these rulings mainly affect the trial proceedings, they also have an impact on how police can conduct their operations. For instance, the decision in Gideon v. Wainwright stated that felony defendants will be provided with an attorney if they cannot afford one. The reach of this decision extends, however, not only to the trial itself but also to critical pre-trial stages such as interrogation and eyewitness identification (Tomkovicz, 2014). The Court based its decision on the Right to Counsel as provided by the Sixth Amendment addressing the rights during criminal prosecution. Combined with other Warren Court’s rulings, this decision provides comprehensive legal protection to the accused, which its critics believe to be unjustifiably broad.
While some may argue that the Warren Court was too liberal in reviewing the existing laws and has thus overstepped its boundaries, the Court had a significant impact on the everyday police work to ensure fair and respectful treatment of criminal suspects.
References
Candela, K. (2011). Miranda rights. In W.J. Chambliss (Ed.), Courts, law, and justice (pp. 173-186). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Maclin, T. (2012). The Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule. Phoenix, AZ: Apollo Education Group.
Tomkovicz, J.J. (2014). An introduction to fifty years of Gideon. Iowa Law Review, 99(5), 1875-1892.