When the Bill of Rights was first ratified, it didn’t offer much shield against abuses by state governments. Each state crafted its own constitutional protections, but these varied widely and often proved inadequate. After the Civil War, however, trust in individual states to safeguard individual liberties was at an all-time low. Enter the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868.
This amendment included the Due Process Clause, a powerful tool against unfair treatment by any state. It essentially said, “No state can mess with its citizens in ways that are fundamentally unjust.” And police officers, as agents of the state, fell under the watchful eye of federal courts thanks to this clause.
Over time, the Supreme Court, particularly during the Warren Court era (1953-1969), used the Due Process Clause to gradually extend most, but not all, of the Bill of Rights protections to the states. This meant that the same rights guaranteed against federal overreach now applied to local and state law enforcement as well.
🔍 Reflect
Do you think extending the Bill of Rights protections to the states was a necessary step? Were there potential downsides to this approach?
Before the Warren Court
A Snapshot of Pre-Civil Rights Era Criminal Justice
Wolf v. Colorado dealt with the issue of illegal searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. The case involved Dr. Julius Wolf, who was convicted based on evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search by Colorado authorities.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Wolf v. Colorado, held that while the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was a fundamental right applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule (which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in court) was not. This meant that even though the search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment, the evidence obtained could still be used in state courts.
The Implications
This decision exemplified the limitations in protecting individual rights against state actions during that era. It showed a criminal justice system that was less concerned with how evidence was obtained and more focused on the evidence itself, regardless of the violation of constitutional rights.
Change in Direction with Mapp v. Ohio
It wasn’t until 1961, with Mapp v. Ohio, a decision by the Warren Court, that the exclusionary rule was applied to the states, overturning the precedent set in Wolf v. Colorado. This marked a significant shift towards stronger protections of individual rights in the face of state power.
🔍 Reflect
Considering the decision in Wolf v. Colorado and its eventual overturn by Mapp v. Ohio, how do you think the approach to constitutional rights and protections has evolved in the United States? Reflect on the significance of this evolution in the context of criminal justice and individual freedoms.
The Warren Court: A Revolution in Criminal Procedure
Early Days: Seeds of Change
Earl Warren’s appointment as Chief Justice in 1953 marked a new chapter in the Supreme Court’s approach to criminal justice. While the early years reflected the conservative legacy of his predecessor, Warren’s commitment to equality and civil liberty began to subtly reshape the legal landscape. Though not yet evident in police practices, the seeds of a more “liberal” agenda were sown.
During this period, the Court upheld the admissibility of illegally seized evidence in state trials, even in cases of blatant Fourth Amendment violations. Extended police interrogations without counsel or the now-famous Miranda warnings were still permitted. From 1953 to 1961, the Supreme Court’s decisions in criminal cases offered little hint of the transformative era to come.
Mapp v. Ohio: The Watershed Moment
In 1961, Mapp v. Ohio set a crucial precedent, ruling that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution couldn’t be used in state trials. This pivotal decision reinforced the need for law enforcement to strictly adhere to constitutional standards, significantly reshaping the landscape of criminal justice by emphasizing the importance of constitutional protections in every aspect of policing.
Rapid Innovation: Expanding Individual Rights
Mapp v. Ohio ushered in a period of rapid legal innovation. The Warren Court, with renewed vigor, expanded individual rights within the criminal justice system. This resulted in a series of landmark decisions:
-
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Guaranteed the right to counsel for indigent defendants in felony cases. This crucial decision overturned the long-standing practice of allowing poor individuals to face serious criminal charges without legal representation.
-
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964): Extended the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to the states, requiring police to stop questioning if a suspect requests an attorney.
-
Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Established the Miranda warnings, requiring specific information be provided to suspects before custodial interrogation to ensure their Fifth Amendment rights are protected. This included the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the potential consequences of waiving those rights.
Miranda’s Legacy: A Complex Victory
While celebrated as a victory for individual rights, Miranda remains a complex and debated decision. The Court aimed to address the ambiguity and lack of guidance surrounding police interrogation practices, which often left lower courts and suspects in a vulnerable position. The secrecy of these situations made it difficult to verify claims of abuse or coercion, putting the burden of proof on defendants and often leading to their disadvantage.
Miranda tackled these issues by establishing two key safeguards: the suspect’s absolute right to silence and the requirement for detailed pre-interrogation warnings before waiving that right. This shifted the balance of power between police and suspects, empowering individuals to protect their constitutional rights during questioning.
🔍 Reflect
- How did the Warren Court’s decisions in criminal procedure cases reshape the relationship between law enforcement and individuals?
- What factors might have contributed to the dramatic shift in the Court’s approach during Warren’s tenure?
- To what extent does Miranda address the concerns surrounding police interrogations? Are there potential limitations to the Miranda doctrine?
The Burger Court
Understanding the Burger Court Era
In the years from 1969 to 1986, there was a big shift in American law, especially in how police work and constitutional law were understood. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger was in charge during this time, and his court made decisions that still affect how police work today. These decisions were a mix of being tough and practical in law enforcement, while also caring about individual rights.
Key Court Decisions and What They Mean
- United States v. Leon (1984): This case brought in the “good faith exception.” It means that if police thought they were following the law when they got evidence, even if they weren’t, the evidence could still be used. This shows how the Burger Court tried to balance rights and police needs.
- Michigan v. Tucker (1974): The Court said that not giving Miranda warnings (these are warnings about your rights) before questioning someone doesn’t always mean the evidence found can’t be used. This was a way of saying Miranda warnings are important, but also acknowledging that police work can be complicated.
- Smith v. Maryland (1979): Here, the Court decided that people can’t expect privacy for information they give to others. This decision is especially important in today’s world with so much digital information.
- New York v. Belton (1982): This ruling let police search the passenger area of a car without a warrant if they’ve legally stopped the car and it’s within reach of the driver. It’s another example of trying to balance individual rights and police work efficiency.
The Bigger Picture of the Burger Court
- Developing Fourth Amendment Laws: The Court made many decisions about searches without warrants, stop-and-frisk procedures, and electronic surveillance. These decisions shaped how the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, is understood.
- Evolving Miranda Rights: While keeping the main idea of Miranda rights, the Court also made exceptions and clarifications, affecting how these rights are used during police questioning.
- Expanding Protections in Criminal Procedures: The Court worked to make sure criminal trials were fair and unbiased, making rules that helped protect people accused of crimes.
🔍 Reflect
How do you think the decisions of the Burger Court impact the way police work is done today? Consider how balancing individual rights and law enforcement needs might affect everyday policing.
Use of Deadly Force Today
The Current Debate on Lethal Force
In recent times, there’s been a lot of talk in the news, blogs, and even books about how police use deadly force. Some people are worried that the police and even regular people don’t fully understand the legal limits on using lethal force. The law, especially from cases like Tennessee v. Garner, sets clear rules about when police can use deadly force, but there seems to be confusion about this.
The Importance of Constitution-Focused Training
One big idea to fix this problem is to make sure police officers get better training about the Constitution. This training would focus on what the Constitution says about using force, especially deadly force. The goal is to make sure police and citizens understand the rules about when police can use lethal force. For example, the case of Tennessee v. Garner says police shouldn’t use deadly force against someone who’s running away and unarmed, or who isn’t a direct threat to others.
The Impact of Ignoring Constitutional Guidelines
Ignoring these constitutional guidelines has had serious consequences. We’ve heard about cases in the media where people were killed by police. If the officers in these cases had followed the Constitution, those people might still be alive. Sometimes police training doesn’t clearly teach these rules, or worse, it might ignore them on purpose. But we can’t let that happen. Police need to protect everyone’s right to life and freedom, as the Constitution says.
Technology Bringing Light to Police Actions
Nowadays, with police wearing body cameras and people recording videos on their smartphones, we’re seeing more of what happens in police encounters. These videos are shared on the internet and social media, showing us things that we might not have seen before. This doesn’t mean bad incidents are new; it just means we’re more aware of them now.
Reforms at State and National Levels
To address these issues, there have been reforms both in states and nationally. States have brought in new laws, like making police wear body cameras, setting up civilian review boards, improving police training, and making police work more transparent and accountable. On a national level, during the Obama administration, there were several initiatives for police reform.
🔍 Reflect
How do you think the advancements in technology, like body cameras and smartphone videos, have impacted the public’s understanding of police use of deadly force? Consider how these tools might influence both police behavior and public perception.
Summary
The evolution of criminal justice in the United States, particularly regarding the application of the Bill of Rights to state actions, has been a significant journey marked by landmark court decisions and societal shifts.
Initially, the Bill of Rights provided limited protection against abuses by state governments. Each state had its own set of constitutional protections, but these varied greatly and often fell short in safeguarding individual liberties. The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, particularly its Due Process Clause, was a pivotal moment. This amendment signaled a shift in trust from the states to the federal government in protecting individual rights. It declared that no state should engage in fundamentally unfair actions against its citizens, placing state law enforcement under federal scrutiny.
During the Warren Court era (1953-1969), the Supreme Court used the Due Process Clause to extend many Bill of Rights protections to the states. This meant that the rights safeguarded against federal overreach were now applicable to local and state law enforcement as well.
A critical case in this context is Wolf v. Colorado (1949), where the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was fundamental and applicable to the states. However, the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in court, was not applied to the states. This decision highlighted the era’s limitations in protecting individual rights against state actions, focusing more on the evidence than how it was obtained.
This approach changed with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), where the Warren Court applied the exclusionary rule to the states, ensuring that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution couldn’t be used in state trials. This decision underscored the need for law enforcement to adhere to constitutional standards and significantly reshaped the criminal justice landscape.
The Burger Court (1969-1986) continued this trajectory, balancing individual rights with practical law enforcement needs. Key decisions included United States v. Leon (1984), introducing the “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule, and Michigan v. Tucker (1974), nuanced in its approach to Miranda warnings. These rulings, along with others like Smith v. Maryland (1979) and New York v. Belton (1982), further developed Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, evolved Miranda rights, and expanded protections in criminal procedures.
In recent times, the use of deadly force by police has become a central issue, intensified by technological advancements like body cameras and widespread internet access. These tools have brought increased awareness and scrutiny to police actions, leading to reforms at both state and national levels. The need for Constitution-focused training for law enforcement is emphasized, particularly in light of cases like Tennessee v. Garner, which sets clear rules on the use of deadly force.
Reflecting on these developments, it’s evident that the relationship between law enforcement and individual rights has undergone significant changes, shaped by court decisions, societal attitudes, and technological advancements. These shifts continue to influence the criminal justice system and the ongoing dialogue on balancing public safety with individual freedoms.
Key Terms
References and Further Reading
Stephen J. Schulhofer, The Constitution and the Police: Individual Rights and Law Enforcement, 66 Wash. U. L. Q. 11 (1988)
Nancy C. Marcus, Out of Breath and down to the Wire: A Call for Constitution-Focused Police Reform, 59 Howard L.J. 5 (2015)
Modification History File Created: 08/15/2018 Last Modified: 12/13/2023
This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.
