Police Response to Appellate Court Decisions: Mapp and Miranda

In: Policy studies journal: an international journal of public policy, Band 7, S. 425-431

Abstract

Appeals of criminal prosecutions have resulted in establishing rules for police practice under both federal & state regulations. Two US Supreme Court cases, Mapp v. Ohio (1961) & Miranda v. Arizona (1966), have had considerable impact. Miranda established that a warning procedure must be followed with suspects prior to questioning; Mapp ruled that evidence illegally gained could not be used in a prosecution. Most police officers find these rulings a deterrent to effective criminal investigation on ideological grounds; in practice they seek to minimize the effect of the rules on their pursuit of evidence. Trial judges tend to uphold the use of challenged evidence in ambiguous cases, which are frequent. The implications of both Supreme Court rulings & state appellate court rulings upon police incentive & practice are discussed. Both state & federal effects must be more fully investigated, although the potential of state rulings may be greater. Modified Author Summary.