Miranda V. Arizona and Terry V. Ohio
The case of Miranda versus Arizona is a landmark case in the US Supreme Court decision that upholds the constitutional rights of an accused in a criminal case the guarantee of protection against self incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and the right to a counsel during the custodial investigation under the Sixth Amendment. It is where the Miranda Rights originated which is a procedure in every custodial investigation of reading the different rights of an accused before being interrogated by the authorities. The case reinforces the essential requirement of these procedural due process of providing the accused the right to choose his own counsel during the custodial investigation and the protection against self incrimination which are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The court decision in the Miranda vs Arizona case made a significant impact in the law enforcement of the United States especially in the conduct of custodial investigation of an accused in a criminal case. This further made the police authorities to become aware of the requirement of the Miranda Warning prior to the custodial investigation or when making an arrest to an accused of a crime (Prentzas, 2006). The facts of the case are as follow together with the court decision that passed a 5-4 vote:
On March 2, 1963 at around 11 p.m., a woman who was walking down the street was forcibly abducted in a car where she was taken in the desert and was raped. Upon police investigation, they have traced the car used by her attacker and identified Ernest Miranda as the suspect. They invited him for questioning and moments later declared that he was already under arrest. Upon reaching the polic headquarters Miranda was placed in a line up together with three other men from the city jail. The woman failed to recognize Miranda with certainty. In an effort to get a confession, the police further interrogated Miranda and later successfully extracted his confession without giving him the opportunity to know his rights under the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination and his right to a counsel during interrogation under the Sixth Amendment. They presented the woman before Miranda who confirmed she was the girl he raped. He was them made to sign a disclaimer containing his confession, stating that the same was made voluntarily and that he understand his rights although these rights were not included in the paper that the signed. Miranda’s confession is the sole evidence that was presented by the prosecution. His lawyer objected in the presentation of his confession invoking that the said confession is inadmissible in court as evidence on the ground that the same violates the rights of the accused against self incrimination and the right to have a counsel during a police interrogation under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. Overruling the objection, the jury rendered the judgment ruling that Miranda is guilty of rape and kidnapping sentencing him for 20 to 30 years of imprisonment. The main issue now raised by the defense lawyer is whether or not the confession made by Miranda may be held admissible as evidence in court in the absence of lack of procedural due process required by the Fifth and Sixth Amendment.
Miranda’s lawyer appealed his case before the US Supreme Court which upheld the ruling of the lower court contending that Miranda did not request specifically to have a counsel during the interrogation. The Supreme Court however later reversed its decision ruling that the prosecutors cannot use any exculpatory or inculpatory statement from an accused whose confession was extracted from a custodial investigation without having been informed of his rights to remain silent and be it known to him that anything he says may be used against him in the court of law. This is the safeguard guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment that generally affords protection to an accused against self incrimination with the right to refuse to answer questions that may incriminate him and using the same in violation of this Constitutional guarantee makes his confession inadmissible in court (Bill of Rights Institute, n.d.). In view of this ruling, the Supreme Court further stresses that the accused has the right to choose his own counsel during the interrogation and if he cannot afford to get one for himself the state will provide for him. If the accused chooses to remain silent, then the custodial investigation should cease. If he chooses to have an attorney then the interrogation must cease until a counsel in present to continue the interrogation. The burden is upon the government to prove that the accused has intelligently waived these rights when he was questioned without the presence of a lawyer. Should it appear that the accused was deprived to know his right against self incrimination and to a counsel, any statements obtained during the investigation are rendered void and inadmissible as evidence in court. Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that the nature of extracting the confession from Miranda was coervice in nature thus his confession is deemed inadmissible in court within the purview of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self incrimination clause. Justice Clark in his dissenting opinion raised the application of the “totality of circumstances doctrine” claiming that Warren’s decision was too haste without considering the other circumstances that might have resulted in the voluntary confession and waiver of his rights by the accused. Justice Byron White also dissented providing that the privilege against self incrimination as embodied in the Fifth Amendment does not expressly forbid custodial investigation without the warning provided to the accused and that to construe the amendment in like manner will allow the courts to allow the criminals to return back in the streets freely. It is notable to mention however that while the original case was dismissed by the Supreme Court, Miranda was again retried without using his confession as evidence by the prosecution. He was finally sentenced in 1967.
The case of Terry vs Ohio is another landmark case of the Supreme Court involving the exemptions on the guarantee on the constitutional provision of the Fourth Amendment providing that every person has the right to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure and warrant shall be issued only with probable cause and must be supported by an oath or affirmation, specifically describing the place to be searched and person and things to be seized (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). While the constitution safeguards the right of every person against search and seizure without a warrant, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the stop and frisk doctrine where a police officer is warranted by law to conduct search and seizure without the virtue of a warrant of arrest or a search warrant under a reasonable cause. The doctrine of stop and frisk is the exemption to the provision of the Fourth Amendment where a police officer is granted with the constitutional authority to interfere to an individual’s freedom when the circumstances so demand in case of a warrantless search and arrest (Harr, Hess and Orthmann, 2012). The Supreme Court applies the rule of reasonableness whereby the police officers are likewise provided the guarantee towards self protection against suspicious men who may be armed, giving them the right to stop and search suspects for dangerous weapons based on reasonable suspicions. The court ruling in the Terri vs Ohio upheld the constitutionality of the stop and frisk doctrine upholding the jurisprudence that the right embodied in the Fourth Amendment is not violated whenever a police officer stops a suspect and make a search even without a warrant as reflected in the facts of the case and the ruling by the Supreme Court as follows:
The petitioner John Terry was stopped and searched by a police officer after the latter became suspicious of him walking up and down the same street and talking to another man in the area and both will frequently peek on the window of a store and seem to be discussing something. They also spoke to another man whom they followed up the street which makes the police officer highly suspicious of them. Based on their actuation, the officer has a reason to suspect that the men might be casing on a store with the plan of robbing it. He approached the men to investigate further and decided to stop and frisk them for any weapon. Terry was found with a concealed weapon during the quick search and was subsequently charged with carrying a concealed weapon. The counsel for the defense raised the unconstitutionality on the manner of discovering the weapon as an illegal search and thus must be inadmissible as evidence. The objection however was overruled and the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the stop and frisk search conducted by the police officer. The court ruled that what the officer did was reasonable and not unconstitutional as it does not violates the guarantee provided by the Fourth Amendment, ruling that the same is only a guaranteed protection against unlawful means of obtaining evidence and does not apply in search for purposes of crime prevention and protection to a police authority. Indeed, one of the grounds for a valid and constitutional warrantless search is the stop and frisk doctrine which can be invasive to one’s own right against a warrantless search (Cole, Smith, DeJong, 2013). Justice John Harlan on one note concurred with the court decision but emphasized reasonableness as a necessary element before the stop and frisk (warrantless search) may be performed by a police officer. Justice Byron White likewise concurred stating that under the circumstances, the suspicion of a violent act makes the warrantless search justified. Justice William Douglas however in his dissenting opinion states that to uphold the stop and frisk doctrine will give the police authorities the power to conduct search and seizure without a warrant which is beyond the power of the court to authorize. It can be gleaned from the case that while the Fourth Amendment provides protection to every citizen the right against a warrantless arrest and search, this exclusionary rule does not apply whenever under a reasonable ground, a police officer finds himself in a situation where he might be endangered of questioning suspicious individuals without searching them first for dangerous weapons. The Supreme Court is willing to afford this kind of protection to police officers with some limitations that will provide them protection and in thrust of crime prevention.
References
Bill of Rights Institute (n.d.). Fifth Amendment: Right Against Self-Incrimination (1791). Retrieved from http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-bill-of-rights/fifth-amendment/self-incrimination/
Cole, G.F., Smith, C.E., and DeJong, C. (2013). The American System of Criminal Justice. California: Cengage Learning.
Harr, J.S., Hess, K.M. and Orthmann, C.M. (2012). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. California: Cengage Learning.
Legal Information Institute, (n.d.). Fourth Amendment. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment.
Prentzas, G.S. (2006). Miranda Rights: Protecting the Rights of the Accused. New York: Rosen Publishing.
