Table of Contents
Mapp vs. Ohio Case
In this case, Mapp was essentially convicted for possession of lascivious and lewd pictures, books, and photographs, which were in direct violation of the existing Ohio Law (Del Carmen, 2006). The events leading to the case involved police officers forcefully entering Mapp’s residence, while looking for a bomb suspect, during which Mapp denied them entry without producing a warrant of arrest. This raised an issue regarding the occurrence of a violation when evidence is obtained against provisions by the Fourth Amendment, which protects victims from unreasonable search and seizure as admitted in state courts (Del Carmen, 2006). The court case turned out to be a land mark case. This was primarily because if the court admitted evidenced which has been unlawfully seized went against the Federal constitution it is expected to uphold (Del Carmen, 2006). The Mapps vs. Ohio case therefore had a massive influence on the manner in which handling of evidence had previously been done, thus protecting the future populations from exposure to such unlawful acts by the enforcement system. Long (2006) adds that “…when she learned of the significance of the ruling-that illegally seized evidence would be excluded from state criminal trials throughout the country…” (p.106).
Miranda Vs. Arozina Case
This case primarily discusses the ruling requiring suspects to be informed of their rights, which includes the right to remain silent including the right to counsel, before undergoing any form of questioning by the enforcement officials or police (Sonneborn, 2004). There had been several incidents in which suspects had been admitted to trial without any knowledge of their rights. The events leading to the Miranda versus Arizona case actually arose from the Escobedo case in which after appealing Escobedo was denied his right counsel hence no statements were taken during his interrogation, since this could be admitted against him during trial (Del Carmen, 2006). During the Miranda Case the court primarily rejected any form of voluntary actions to establish the admissibility of statements from criminals in the court. The Miranda changed the land mark of the criminal justice system with regard to the provision of Miranda warnings, provision of waiver from the warnings, and the intelligent capacities under which they are given taking into account voluntary actions (Del Carmen, 2006). This has a great impact on the interpretation of the law based on circumstances. Del Carmen (2006) concludes that “trial courts no longer need to investigate specific facts to determine if the statement was in fact voluntary” (p.404).