Miranda v. Arizona, Terry v. Ohio
Facts of the case
Ernest Miranda kidnapped and raped an 18-year old woman on her way back home from work after parting company with her coworker on alighting from a bus they had both travelled in. The victim could not identify the perpetrator even though police brought in several suspects. At one stage t police suspected her complaint itself. They made undergo lie-detector test but the test neither could confirm nor deny her innocence. However, after a week of the incident, the victim on her own found the victim and gave leads about him to the police . The 23-year-old Miranda was found to be poor and a school dropout and was arrested at his house. They forced him to give a confessional statement which contained about the warning that it could be used against him in court. The Trial Court convicted him of kidnap and rape and sentenced him 30 years concurrent imprisonment.
The Issue
The court framed the issue whether the suspect is entitled to be informed whilst under interrogation of his constitutional right of warning that his evidence incriminating him could and would be used adversely against him and that he had the right of a lawyer to be present during his interrogation.The ruling of the lower court.
The trial court ruled that if Miranda’s confession was voluntary, it could be used against him. The trial court judge also added to the jury as guidance that a confession need not be considered a forced one just because he was under arrest while the statement was given or an attorney was not present at that time and even if he was not informed of the prospect his statement being used against him in court. Accordingly, the jury decided that he was guilty because the confessional statement contained his signature and therefore it must have been voluntary. The Supreme Court of Arizona also confirmed the decision of the trial court. The majority (ruling) opinion of the case.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. reversed the decision of the court below in its 5-4 majority ruling for the reason that self-incriminating evidence of the suspect rendered during the interrogation could not be used against him if he had not been informed of rights under the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment entitled him to remain silent at the time of interrogation and to insist on a lawyer being present on his behalf whilst under interrogation. That he should have been informed that his self-incriminating evidence could and would be used against him to his perfect understanding of the gravity of the consequences. And that the police should have appointed an attorney to protect the interests of the suspect if he could not afford to engage an attorney from his own sources and his cost. The Supreme Court asserted that the Fifth Amendment right is constitutional one. Dissenting Opinion
The four dissenting judges stated that though a suspect might demand an attorney to protect his interest, police would not always get one and would not wait to get a confessional statement and that the majority judges’ concept of voluntary confession was farfetched . Judge Harlan specifically stated that the majority decision was wrought with serious consequences which time alone could tell. And that the police were skilled enough to make it appear as a voluntary one and what the majority thought of it was an utopia.
Terry v Ohio
Facts of the case
A patrol officer detective saw two strangers indulging in suspicious acts. Their going to a particular spot and returning and doing the same act 24 times back and forth and being joined by a third man at the completion of each round, aroused the detective’s suspicion that something was amiss. Therefore, the officer approached and confronted them as to what they were up to after a formal introduction about him. As they did not give a satisfactory answer, he proceeded to search their person one after another. The search of the first person just at the outer surface of his clothing revealed that he was in possession of a gun which could not however be removed. Therefore, they were led in to the store near which they were moving suspiciously and made to raise their hands facing a wall while he searched other two persons when they were also found to have guns in their possession. They were later taken to the station and formal charge was made against them for possession of concealed weapons.
Issue:
Whether it is in order for a police officer to search a person without a warrant even in the absence of a probable cause if he is of the opinion that the person may be in possession of weapon or otherwise dangerous. And whether the said manner of search is a violation of Fourth Amendment..
Lower Court decision
The lower court rejected the petitioner Terry’s claim that evidence obtained from him was violative of his Fourth Amendment right and hence it should be suppressed. The court stated that the officer reasonably believed that Terry and his accomplice Chilton acted in such a manner and the officer was therefore prompted to search their persons to ensure his own safety before proceeding to interrogate them. The court distinguished between an investigatory stop and arrest and “frisk and “full blown search” Thus, relying the evidence, the trail court convicted Terry and Chilton. The appellate court of Ohio (Supreme Court) also confirmed the trial court’s decision for want of any constitutional issue.
The U.S. Supreme court’s decision
The lower court’s judgment was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. It stated that Fourth Amendment rights prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures were enabled by Fourteenth Amendment for States to follow mainly for protection of people and not places. The court surmised that Fourth Amendment right can as well be applied for searches on the street besides home and any other place. The issue involved was not about the police conduct as to whether evidence obtained during the search and seizure without a warrant was admissible. The exclusionary rule should not put the police at a disadvantage and bar them from applying investigative techniques and that such a stand should not be a bar for remedies against police abuses .
The Fourth Amendment is applicable to “stop and frisk” procedures: (a) A person is deemed to have been seized within the meaning of Fourth Amendment if a police officer accosts that person and restrains him from walking away. (b) It is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment even if it involves thorough search of the outer surface of clothing of the person in order to find a weapon.
When a police officer believes that he should safeguard his safety before confronting the suspects, he is justified in searching their persons whether or not there is a probable cause for arrest of that person or if he is certain that the suspect is armed. In the normal course if time permits, the police should obtain warrant for search and seizure. If the exigencies of the situation so require, a warrant can be dispensed with if there must be a swift action expected of a police officer on beat. The reasonableness of a search needs to be viewed under the compelling circumstances and depends what a man of prudence would act in similar circumstances. In the present case, the officer was on duty to confront anyone with suspicious movements. The search without a probable cause must be decided by the exigencies of the situation. If he thinks that there is danger, he is justified by any action short of an arrest. The officer did what was minimally required to achieve his object. Therefore, evidence of the seizure was viewed by the court as proper and permissible under the Fourth Amendment .
Dissent
Dissenting opinion was rendered by Justice William Douglass stating that majority decision encouraged usurpation of powers by the police which even the magistrates did not possess. .
References
Burgan, M. (2006). Miranda V. Arizona: The Rights of the Accused. Minneapolis: Capstone .
CaseBriefs. (n.d.). Terry v Ohio . Retrieved Ovt 13, 2013, from Casebreifs. com : http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-weinreb/the-fourth-amendment-arrest-and-search-and-seizure/terry-v-ohio-4/2/
del Carmen, R. V., & Walker, J. T. (2011). Briefs of Leading Cases in Law Enforcement (8 ed.). Waltham, MA: Elsevier.
Hook, S. V. (2012). Miranda V. Arizona: An Individual's Rights When Under Arrest . Minnesota: ABDO.
LegalInformationInstitute. (n.d ). Terry v Ohio (No 67) . Retrieved Oct 13, 2013, from Legal Information Institute : http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html
Sonneborn, L. (2003). Miranda V. Arizona: The Rights of the Accused. New York: he Rosen Publishing Group.
Streetlaw.org. (n.d.). Key Excerpts from the DIssenting Opinion . Retrieved Oct 13, 2013, from Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court : http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/469/Key_Excerpts_from_the_Dissenting_Opinion
