Case studies

Mapp v . Ohio and Miranda v . Arizona

An analysis

Kristin E . Blue

23 March 2008

Section 1

The case of Mapp vs . Ohio [367 U .S . 643 (1961 )] was brought to the Supreme Court on account of Mapp 'sconviction due to a transgression of an Ohio statute . Mapp was said to have violated the statue for possessing and keeping in her house various materials which are obscene in nature . The obscene materials were found in her house after a search conducted by police officers in her house . Mapp appealed

her conviction before the Supreme Court , arguing that the search conducted by the police should be struck down as invalid as the same was conducted without the benefit of a warrant

In Miranda vs . Arizona [384 U .S . 436 (1966 )] , Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping . His conviction was decided by the lower court on account of his confession before police officers . He confessed to having committed the offense when he was investigated upon after being arrested by the police . Miranda appealed his conviction before the Supreme Court contending that the confession cannot be considered as proper basis for his conviction due to the fact that he was without the assistance of counsel during the interrogation in which the confession was made by him

Section 2

In Mapp vs . Ohio , the Supreme Court set aside the conviction , holding that the search could not validly produce the conviction for the same was conducted without a warrant being issued for the same . The Court citing Weeks vs . United States [232 U .S . 383 (1914 )] , supported its decision by saying "conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts . In the opinion of the Court , to convict a person based on an invalid search is a denial of the Constitutional rights of the citizens and hence cannot be permitted by the Courts

The conviction in Miranda vs . Arizona was likewise held invalid by the Supreme Court . In this case , the Court relied on the coercive nature of interrogations conducted by police for saying that one conducted without the presence of counsel to assist the accused is a denial of the constitutional rights of the latter . Hence , any confession made under any un-counseled interrogation cannot be sanctioned as valid evidence against the accused . The Court , in its decision , made clear that the person in custody must , prior to interrogation , be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent , and that anything he says will be used against him in court he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation , and that , if he is indigent , a lawyer will be appointed to represent him

Section 3

It is believed that the decisions rendered in both cases do not handcuff the police so as to restrict them from performing their duties In fact , it is advanced...