From doing the crime to doing time: How just is our criminal justice system?
In the hypothetical shoplifting case, your arrest at the mall occurred at the scene of the crime. Under such circumstances, the police do not need to get an arrest warrant. Like a search warrant, an arrest warrant must be issued by a judge and be based on probable cause. When officers find a likely suspect at the scene of a crime, however, they can make a warrantless arrest.
Law enforcement officers must follow very specific steps when making an arrest. From the moment a suspect is placed in handcuffs until the time the suspect is jailed or released, police officers are required to follow proper procedures to ensure that the suspect’s rights are protected.
A landmark Supreme Court decision in the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona helped ensure that police officers observe due process when taking suspects into custody. This decision requires officers to inform suspects of their rights as they are being arrested.
The Miranda case began in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1963, when Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape and kidnapping after a victim identified him in a police lineup. During questioning by police, Miranda confessed in writing to both crimes. The police later admitted that they did not inform Miranda of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or of his Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney present during questioning. They argued, however, that Miranda had been arrested before and therefore must have been aware of his rights. At his trial, Miranda was convicted and given a sentence of 20 to 30 years in prison for each crime.
Miranda’s attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, arguing that the confession was not admissible evidence because Miranda had been denied his legal rights. The state court denied Miranda’s appeal and upheld his conviction. In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Miranda v. Arizona, along with three similar cases in other states.
Noting that the interrogation of Miranda was done in an “atmosphere ... of intimidation, ”the Court concluded that for a confession to be valid, a suspect must be informed of his or her rights. The Court said that a confession could not be admitted as evidence unless a suspect had been told the following:
These Miranda warnings have become a cornerstone of the procedures that officers follow when making an arrest. Any statements offered by a suspect before Miranda warnings are given cannot be offered as evidence in a trial. In addition, any evidence that officers might uncover as result of an illegal confession is also inadmissible in court.
The Court has noted exceptions to its decision in the Miranda case, however. One is the “public safety ”exception. Police can question suspects before giving the Miranda warnings if they believe public safety is at risk. For example, in 1984, New York City police chased an armed suspect into a grocery store. When they asked him where his gun was, he showed it to them. In this case, the gun was admitted as evidence, because locating the gun quickly was critical to public safety.
When criminal suspects arrive at the police station after their arrest, they are “booked, ”or processed. They are asked to give their name, date of birth, and other personal information. They are informed of the charges against them, though these charges will later be stated more formally in a courtroom. They are also fingerprinted, photographed, and searched. In some cases, suspects are required to stand in a police lineup to be viewed by witnesses.
During booking, an officer confiscates a suspect’s personal property. The officer makes a list of everything taken and has the suspect sign the list.
The suspect has the right to make a phone call during booking. Most suspects call family members, friends, or a lawyer. In some cases, a lawyer may be able to get the charges dropped. Otherwise, the suspect has to remain in jail, awaiting the next stage in the criminal justice process.