The Warren Courts Rulings and Criminal
Perhaps, one of the most widely known implications of the Warren Courts rulings is the 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 Courts 1966 decision inMiranda 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which proved to be one of its most controversial cases, with the opponents of the Miranda warning calling for it to be repealed (Candela, 2011).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 1961Mapp v. Ohiocase 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 suspects constitutional rights is frequently inadmissible in court proceedings, meaning that police have to obtain a search warrant to inspect the suspects belongings (Maclin, 2012).
Furthermore, the 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 inGideon v. Wainwrightstated 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 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 Courts rulings, this decision provides comprehensive legal protection to the accused, which its critics believe to be unjustifiably broad.