The Case Of Mapp V. Ohio

928 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Analysis of mapp v ohio

THESIS: Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona are Supreme Court cases that prove to be essential in protecting and strengthening individual rights in the United States. To begin with, the United States’ Supreme Court is the utmost federal court in the government, established with precedence over the lower court system. It has appellate jurisdiction over all cases concerning the Constitution and/or federal law. For a case to reach the Supreme Court, the conflict is required to be between two or more states, concerning an ambassador, or a violation of the Constitution. One case that reached the Supreme Court of the United States was Mapp v. Ohio. Dollree Mapp was arrested in May of 1957 for the ownership of lewd materials, including obscene photographs and books. After she was incarcerated for this crime, she appealed her case to the Supreme Court against the State of Ohio. Ernesto Miranda’s case against the State of Arizona also extended to the Supreme Court in 1966. The appellant was arrested and convicted for the kidnapping
Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona have great impacts on the United States criminal justice system. The decision of Mapp v. Ohio ultimately aids in the strengthening of the Fourth Amendment with the extension of the exclusionary rule. Until this ruling, states did not have to obey this rule and could get away with warrantless searches. With this order, the privacy of United States citizens is safeguarded. Moreover, the Supreme Court created the “Miranda rights” as a result of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda rights establish that upon a person 's arrest, the police is mandated to inform that individual of his basic rights, which include “that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed” (9). Essentially, people are given the right to not make any “self-incriminating statements”

Show More
Related

  • The Court Case: Mcculloch V. Maryland

    811 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.

    Read More

  • Georgia Vs. Randolph Case Study

    1227 Words  | 3 Pages

    This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.

    Read More

  • Arizona V. Hicks

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask.

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case: Ernesto Miranda's Law

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).

    Read More

  • Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas Analysis

    654 Words  | 2 Pages

    Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.

    Read More

  • Justice Fortas And Tinker V. Des Moines Case

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.

    Read More

  • False Confessions and the Norfolk Four Case

    2738 Words  | 6 Pages

    Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.

    Read More

  • American Civil Liberties: Do Americans Have Enough Protections for Civil Liberties, or Not?

    1449 Words  | 3 Pages

    Friedman, L. S. (2010). What Is the State of Civil Liberties in the United States?. Civil liberties (pp. 11-49). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.

    Read More

  • Miranda vs. Arizona

    396 Words  | 1 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government.

    Read More

  • Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey

    1705 Words  | 4 Pages

    Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .

    Read More

  • Restraint and Activism

    379 Words  | 1 Pages

    Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights

    1348 Words  | 3 Pages

    Miranda v Arizona went all the way to the Supreme Court. There the Supreme Court ruled that the police do have a responsibility to inform a subject of an interrogation of their constitutional rights. The constitutional rights have to do with self-incrimination, and the right to counsel before, during and after questioning.

    Read More

  • Speech On Miranda Rights

    691 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was taken into custody for robbery, kidnapping, and rape. After two hours of questioning, Miranda confessed to his crimes. Being uneducated in the matter, Miranda did not know that the Fifth Amendment gives everyone the right to remain silent and not talk about anything that might convict him, or her. Miranda also didn't understand the Sixth Amendment, which provides everyone the right to have an attorney when the police are asking questions about a crime. The United States Supreme Court found that, in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), because the police had not told Miranda about these constitutional rights, the confession to the crimes could not be used as evidence against Miranda at trial. To avoid an unfortunate rerun of these events, police officers now tell the person in question their ‘Miranda Rights’ before he, or she, is taken into

    Read More

  • What Are Miranda Warnings Necessary?

    371 Words  | 1 Pages

    In 1966, the U.S. Supreme court case Miranda v. Arizona ruled that those arrested for a crime must be issued certain rights by the police. The requirement given by a Miranda warning fulfill a citizen's rights and prevents manipulation by police. Miranda rights, however, contain massive loopholes that can be used to the prisoner's advantage and allow dangerous men or women to go free. Miranda rights, in sum, are necessary in protecting the rights of the people, but are not immune to the legal gaps they contain.

    Read More

  • Why Is Miranda Rights Important

    541 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda Rights are important because they ensure the reliability of a suspect’s confession and that the suspect is aware of his/her rights while in custody. The Miranda Rights were implemented after the Miranda v. Arizona case that was brought to the Supreme Court. In this case, Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape, kidnapping, and robbery based on his confession to the police, without him being aware of the fifth and sixth amendments. The Supreme Court ruled that his disclosure was not valid as a result of the Amendments.

    Read More

More about The Case Of Mapp V. Ohio

Open Document