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 ExampleMiranda vs. Arizona Miranda was arrested due to circumstantial point that accused him of kidnapping and raping an 18- grade old woman, 10 days before his arrest. He signed a statement pleading guilty of the offense without knowing his in effect(p) to counsel. The supreme court of Arizona affirmed the courts decision to admit the confession. However, Earl Warren, the chief arbitrator ruled that due to the interrogation nature, where he was not informed of his rights by the guard, 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 close to by the Miranda warning. The court has since reiterated the Miran da 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 effectively 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 outpouring 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 syst ems 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 that forever changed the face of law enforcement in America (Brooks 12).