Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Cases and their Effects on Assignment - 3

Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Cases and their Effects on Interaction of Criminal Suspects and Law Enforcement Officers - Assignment Example Miranda vs. Arizona Miranda was arrested due to circumstantial evidence that accused him of kidnapping and raping an 18-year –old woman, 10 days before his arrest. He signed a statement pleading guilty of the offense 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 ef fectively been extended to US immigrants. Since then, illegal aliens who are arrested each year must read the Miranda warnings and be ready 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 tha t forever changed the face of law enforcement in America (Brooks 12).