Skip to content
Quick Guides

Criminal Justice - Police Powers and Citizens' Rig

Preview 6 of 20 pages

See the first 6 pages exactly as they appear in the document.

  1. Page 1
    Read page 1 as text

    Study Guide Criminal Jus Ɵ ce – Police Powers and Ci Ɵ zens' Rights 1. The Exclusionary Rule 1.1 What Is the Exclusionary Rule? The exclusionary rule is a rule created by judges to protect people’s constitutional rights. It says that evidence obtained by the government in an illegal way cannot be used against a defendant in court . If police violate a person’s constitutional rights — especially during a search — any evidence they find may be excluded from the trial. To make this happen, the defendant can file a motion to suppress before the trial. This motion asks the judge to declare the evidence inadmissible , meaning the prosecution cannot use it. Most of the time, the exclusionary rule applies to physical evidence , such as: • A murder weapon • Stolen property • Illegal drugs This rule mainly protects the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures . 1. 2 Weeks v. United States (1914): The Birth of the Rule The exclusionary rule began with the Supreme Court case Weeks v. United States in 1914. In this case, the Court decided that if police go beyond their constitutional authority when conducting a search, that search is invalid . As a result, any evidence found during that illegal search cannot be used in court. At the time of this decision, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government , not to state governments. This meant that the exclusionary rule initially applied only in federal cases .

  2. Page 2
    Read page 2 as text

    Study Guide 1. 3 Mapp v. Ohio (1961): Expanding the Rule to the States In Mapp v. Ohio , the Supreme Court extended the exclusionary rule to state courts . This decision came from the Warren Court , which was known for strongly protecting individual rights. The Court ruled that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of the Fourth Amendment and must be followed by the states. The Court explained that states needed this rule because they had failed to create effective ways to stop police from conducting arbitrary or unlawful searches . However, the decision was controversial. Some police officials and politicians criticized Mapp , arguing that it “handcuffed” the police and made law enforcement more difficult. 1. 4 Erosion of Mapp: Limits on the Exclusionary Rule Over time, support for the exclusionary rule weakened. Conservative justices who replaced members of the Warren Court were less enthusiastic about the rule . As a result, the Supreme Court limited its impact in several ways. The Court ruled that illegally obtained evidence could still be used: • In grand jury proceedings • By the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in civil tax cases • In deportation hearings 1. 5 U.S. v. Leon (1984): The Good Faith Excep Ɵ on One of the most important limitations came in U.S. v. Leon . In this case, the Court created the good faith exception . This exception allows evidence to be used even if the search warrant is later found to be invalid , as long as the police: • Acted honestly • Believed the warrant was valid at the time In other words, if police make a reasonable, good - faith mistake , the evidence they collect may still be admitted in court.

  3. Page 3
    Read page 3 as text

    Study Guide 1. 6 Why This Ma Ʃ ers The exclusionary rule plays a key role in balancing two important goals: • Protecting individual constitutional rights • Allowing law enforcement to do its job effectively While the rule remains an important legal protection, courts have placed limits on it over time to prevent it from going too far. Understanding how the exclusionary rule developed — and how it has changed — helps explain how courts try to balance fairness, justice, and public safety. 2. Fi Ō h Amendment: The Right to Remain Silent 2.1 What Does “Taking the Fi Ō h” Mean? “ Taking the Fifth ” means choosing to remain silent so you do not say anything that could incriminate you. This right comes from the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This protection applies to everyone — both guilty and innocent people. Even an innocent person can say something that sounds suspicious or is misunderstood. That is why this right is so important, especially during police interrogations , where officers question suspects to obtain evidence, often in the form of confessions . 2.2 Why Forced Confessions Are Banned Without the right to remain silent, police could pressure suspects to confess using threats, pain, or torture . History shows that this has happened — and it sometimes led innocent people to confess just to stop the abuse. A powerful example is Brown v. Mississippi (1936) . In this case, police accused three Black men of murder and whipped them until they confessed . A Mississippi court sentenced them to death. However, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions . The Court ruled that confessions obtained through physical torture cannot be used in court , whether in state or federal cases. The reasoning was clear: • Forced confessions violate human dignity

  4. Page 4
    Read page 4 as text

    Study Guide • They undermine trust in government • They are often unreliable 2.3 When the Right Against Self - Incrimina Ɵ on Applies The Fifth Amendment mainly protects people from being forced to give confessions or other incriminating statements . For the Fifth Amendment to apply, the evidence must be: • Compelled (forced by the government) • Testimonial (spoken or written communication) If a suspect voluntarily gives up the right to remain silent and confesses, the government may use that confession in court. The Fifth Amendment protects people from giving testimonial evidence , such as answering questions or giving statements that could incriminate them. This includes: • Live testimony • Transcripts of testimony However, the Fifth Amendment does not protect physical evidence . For example, police may take a blood sample if they reasonably believe someone was driving under the influence. 2.4 Confessions and the Right to an A Ʃ orney The Fifth Amendment is closely connected to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel . In Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) , the Supreme Court ruled that once police questioning becomes accusatory rather than investigative , the suspect has the right to have an attorney present during interrogation. This means that when police start treating someone as a suspect instead of just gathering information, that person is entitled to legal counsel . 2.5 Miranda Warnings: Protec Ɵ ng the Right to Silence The Supreme Court strengthened Fifth Amendment protections in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) .

  5. Page 5
    Read page 5 as text

    Study Guide In this case, Miranda confessed to kidnapping and rape without being told of his rights and without an attorney present . The Court ruled that his confession could not be used as evidence . As a result, police are now required to give Miranda warnings when they take a suspect into custody and before questioning begins. These warnings inform suspects that: • They have the right to remain silent • Anything they say can be used against them in court • They have the right to an attorney A suspect may voluntarily waive these rights. However, if the suspect says at any point that they want to remain silent, police must stop questioning immediately . Any confession obtained without proper Miranda warnings is inadmissible in court . 2.6 The Erosion of Miranda Not everyone supported the Miranda decision. Critics — especially conservatives — called it a “technicality” that would “handcuff” the police . Over time, the Supreme Court has limited Miranda’s reach , though it has never completely overturned it. Some important cases include: • Harris v. New York (1971): Statements made without Miranda warnings can be used to challenge a defendant’s credibility if they testify at trial. • New York v. Quarles (1984): Created the public safety exception , allowing police to ask urgent questions before giving Miranda warnings if public safety is at risk. • Nix v. Williams (1984): Established the inevitable discovery exception , allowing illegally obtained evidence if police would have eventually found it legally anyway. 2.7 When Miranda Warnings Are Required Police must give Miranda warnings only when a suspect is in custody and about to be questioned.

  6. Page 6
    Read page 6 as text

    Study Guide 2.8 When Miranda Warnings Are Not Required Police do not need to give Miranda warnings in these situations: • When questioning witnesses at a crime scene , not suspects • When a person volunteers information without being asked • During brief street stops • During traffic stops 2.9 Why This Ma Ʃ ers The Fifth Amendment protects people from being forced to convict themselves. While the courts have limited some of these protections over time, the right to remain silent remains a core safeguard of fairness and justice in the American legal system. 3. Ci Ɵ zens’ Rights: A Barrier to Jus Ɵ ce? For many years, the U.S. Supreme Court has tried to strike a balance between two important goals: • Protecting the rights of people accused of crimes , and • Giving police enough power to catch and punish criminals This balance is not easy. Some critics argue that rules like the exclusionary rule and Miranda warnings make law enforcement less effective. Others believe these rules are essential for protecting freedom and fairness. 3.1 Arguments for Abolishing the Exclusionary Rule and Miranda Warnings Critics who want these rules eliminated make several key points. 3.1.1 They Limit Police Inves Ɵ ga Ɵ ons Opponents argue that Miranda warnings prevent police from obtaining confessions during interrogations. According to this view, guilty people sometimes go free because police are unable to gather critical evidence.

14 more pages in the full document

Unlock it once and it stays in your library, ready to chat with or turn into flashcards.

Unlock the full document

More Criminal Justice study materials

See all

Study this document with CramX

Once it is in your library, every tool can work from it.