Effects of Supreme Court Decisions on Law Enforcement in the US

This article discusses the impact of landmark decisions made by the Supreme Court on law enforcement in the United States, including Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, Roe v. Wade, and more. It also explores the current approach to balancing public order maintenance and civil liberties, and the struggle to maintain a balance between efficient crime regulation and prevention while protecting civil liberties.

Criminal Procedure
Student Name
University name

Criminal Procedure
Introduction
America in the starting of 1950s had become a country obsessed with social changes
and freedom. The Warren Court at the same time mirrored the following developments. The
Burger built run those courts and carried out the developments in an appropriate manner. The
courts of Burger and Warren believed in a new concept that the constitution was a living and
breathing document which means it adapts with changing environment. The court of
Rehnquist was being formed. The court presents the idea that the constitution is when it was
formed was not only relevant but it is also present in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries
(Baum, 2013).
Main Context
Effects of the decisions of Supreme Court on law enforcement in the United States
A great deal was being accomplished by the Chief Justice Earl Warren before he was
being appointed finally as the Chief Justice. Warren was being elected as the governor of
California and he did his job for three consecutive terms. He was also Attorney General and
District Attorney of California in his early years. He earned a reputation that he takes very
harsh decisions in the criminal cases. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the president appointed the
Chief Justice Earl Warren after Earl Warren in 1953. However, Earl Warren had carried
significant cases which imposed a significant impact on the community and criminal justice
(Belknap & Warren, 2005).
The Brown v. Board of Education was depicted to the landmark decision made by the
Supreme Court of United States. The case depicted that the state rules are establishing public
schools separately for the white and black students. The decision inverted the decision of
Plessey v. Ferguson of 1896 in which segregation of state-sponsored was allowed. The
unanimous decision of Warren Court explained that the separate educations for students are
considered to be inherently unequal. The racial segregation, as a result, ruled the violation or
breach of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States. The ruling
provided a path for the civil rights movement (Bell-Rehwoldt, 2005). A question was raised
whether the constitution provided the power to court for giving orders.
Warren explained his argument to his colleagues that he believed that the racial
segregation has to violate the constitution. But he did not insist on a vote. He just spoke to the
1

Criminal Procedure
justice and motivates them to discuss with each other as he created a common place where all
could stand. He got eight votes and it made Stanley Reed of Kentucky join the rest. A basic
view in Brown V. Board Education was created by Warren and it kept moving and reviewing
till he had an opinion by every member of the court. Warren got help to desegregate the
school, and it was mostly from President Richard M Nixon (Collins, 2013). During the time
when Warren was chief, he successfully kept all the decisions regarding segregation
unanimous. Brown submitted a requested for school and very soon the court expands the
concept to all other states by making a low against racial classification in many areas.
Congress sanctions the process in the Civil Right Act of 1964 and in the voting right act of
1965. Warren felt that he and his racial segregation was wrong. This decision will remain as a
landmark decision; Warren was against the equal protection clause which refers to
reservation for the minority children.
Miranda V. Arizona decision was a landmark decision for the United States of
America. As per this law, the court has mentioned that both inculpatory and exculpatory
statement which has given in repose to the interrogation by a defendant in police custody will
be acceptable in the trail. The prosecution has to show that the defendant was aware of the
right to discuss with an attorney during or before the questioning and of the right to self-
incrimination before investigating by police (Domingo, 2011). And it must be understood by
the defendant and agreed on it. The Miranda Warning has made a significant impact on low
enforcement of the United States. A formal warning is known as a Miranda Warning which
must be given to the suspect by the police before starting the interrogation. The purpose of
this warning is to make sure that accused is aware and reminded of his/her rights and the
accused must know that he/she can invoke at any point of time during the investigation. The
Miranda Warning has to be understood by the accused before starting the interrogation. If the
suspect tells something related to the case before reading the warning the information can be
considered valid because the interrogation was not started by that time (Schwartz, 1998).
Gideon V. Wainwright case left a deep mark in the history of United State Supreme
Court. According to this low and under the Sixth Amendment of the constitution the Supreme
Court has granted an attorney for the defence to those people who cannot afford a private
attorney. This amendment has made a huge impact on law enforcement (Espejo, 2009). As
per the Supreme Court's decision, in all capital cases, a council must be provided to all.
Gideon V. Wainwright has helped those people who are not financially strong enough to get
2

Criminal Procedure
an attorney in defence. However, it is difficult to say that whether this policy has brought a
positive or negative impact on the Criminal Justice. Warren used to insist that the police
should always be fair or the accused should set free.
Chief Rehnquist was not in favour of gay rights as the United States Constitution did
not have any specific law or any right to them. An amendment was made in the Colorado
State Constitution, Amendment 2. According to this amendment, all the city town or country
of the state taking any executive, legislative, or judicial action to identify gay and lesbian
citizens as a protected class (Belsky, 2002). The legislation of Colorado decided to look into
the previous decision of the Supreme Court, Bowers v. Hardwick, where the Supreme Court
said that the homosexual activity is illegal and unconstitutional. Then it was claimed that if
homosexuality is illegal and unconstitutional then the special protection should not be
provided to them. The Supreme Court said that Colorado's law was unconstitutional. In 2003
a case came under Supreme Court under Chief Rehnquist, Lawrence v. Texas. In the ruling 6-
3, the Supreme Court struck down the law of sodomy. The court had a similar case previously
in 1986, where a lady called Georgia has claimed that she was not getting the constitutional
protection of sexual privacy. The majority had asked for the protection as the intimate
consensual sexual conduct was a part the liberty.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist was chosen in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.
William had worked before as Assistant Attorney General and as an Associate Justice in the
Supreme Court. Rehnquist always supported a form of federalism that forced The Tenth
Amendments of powers to the nation. Rehnquist always supported the states’ right and work
to control the federal limit (Friedman, 2010). The decision which was made in Brown V.
Board of education was never supported by Rehnquist. Rehnquist was in favour of the
opinion which was agreed by the majority of South Dakota, supporting congress’s depletion
of funds to state not following with the national 21 years old drinking age.
Roe V. Wade came in the headline because of his controversial decision on the issue
of abortion by the Supreme Court. Under Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, the court decided the right to privacy which provides a woman to have an
abortion. The court agreed to Roe and woman has right to abortion up until visibility. The
Roe defined that the child has a right to live outside of mother’s womb (Haerens, 2010). Later
an article added that the visibility usually comes at about seven months, but it may also come
earlier at 24 weeks. It was rejected by many nations and federal restriction on abortion in the
3

Criminal Procedure
United States, a debate was promoted by Roe V. Wade which continues today, about abortion
that whether it should be legal or not, if yes then what extent it should be legal. Who is
responsible to decide the decide the legality of abortion, what procedures should be used by
the Supreme Court for constitutional settlement and what should be the role of religion in this
case (Kirton & Madunic, 2009). When activating movements on was going on both side, Roe
V. Wade changed the national politics, the United States was divided into pro-choice and pro-
life camps. The decision's effects were mischaracterized by the supporter and the opponent
of Roe. For an example, if pro-choice will be considered then thousands of woman are dying
every year from illegal abortion. In the other hand if the pro-life claim will be considered
then the rate of female suicide is worse. Roe's both claims do not seem legitimate.
The current approach to balancing public order maintenance and civil liberties
The decisions taken in the Rehnquist and Warren courts have imposed a significant
impact on the present criminal procedure. It has become difficult for the criminal procedure
to maintain a balance between for efficient and effective crime regulation and prevention as
well as protection of the civil liberties. The Supreme Court till today is trying to keep a
balance between the projection of the civil liberties and maintenance of rules and law
(Marshall, 2008). The struggle had started from the landmark decisions which were being
made by through liberalism of Warren court and conservation of Rehnquist court. The justice
Earl Warren had started the activism which resulted in the need of using invoking human
right approaches for preventing crimes.
Nowadays, the civil rights movements and security demands have been increased
which forced the courts to ensure that an appropriate caution is being made while decisions in
order to make a right balance (Campbell, 2010). The court is responsible for making
decisions but the criticisms cannot be avoided because of the controversies which surround
the issues of civil liberties and police powers. The Utah v. Strieff case has depicted that the
police officers have carried out the investigation on the apartment on the basis of the
narcotics activity’s anonymous tip. The defendant was being stopped by the police officer
while leaving the house but it was unlawful to make him stop (Melton, 2010). The decision
was made by the court stating that the search was considered to be violation or breach of the
Fourth Amendments till there a warrant which is valid and not connected with the conduct of
stopping him. The decision made by the court depicted an uncertain view because they
4

Criminal Procedure
thought that the case would attract the law enforcement officers in violating the rights of the
people.
The landmark decisions made by the Chief Justice Earl Warren have created a
historical foundation on struggles of keeping a balance between maintenance of rules and
laws and civil liberty protection. Apart from this, Rehnquist has depicted to be taken a
conservative hard decision on crime and the Warren court took a soft decision on the crime.
In today's court, the approaches are being used in criminal cases (Schwartz, 1988).
Conclusion
It seems that Chief Justice was part of many cases. Chief Justice Earl Warren was a
Republican once he became Chief Justice, he changed the side. He made many decisions in
such a way which Republican would not have. On the other hand, it can be noticed that Chief
Justice William Rehnquist was in favour of states' rights and undertake government power. It
seems that Chief Warren was controlling other members and he was also more successful
compared to others. And the Chief Rehnquist's both the decisions regarding abortion and gay
rights did not work. The Supreme Court is trying to balance public order and civil liberties
(Shaw, 2003).
5

Criminal Procedure
References
Baum, L. (2013). The Supreme Court (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: CQ Press.
Belknap, M., & Warren, E. (2005). The Supreme Court under Earl Warren, 1953-1969 (10th
ed.). Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press.
Bell-Rehwoldt, S. (2005). Law (2nd ed.). Detroit: Lucent Books.
Belsky, M. (2002). The Rehnquist court (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Collins, R. (2013). Books by Supreme Court Justices. Journal Of Supreme Court
History, 38(1), 94-117. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5818.2013.12006.x
Campbell, T. (2010). Justice (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Domingo, R. (2011). New global law (4th ed.). New York: Cambridge Univ Press.
Espejo, R. (2009). Civil liberties (5th ed.). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Friedman, L. (2010). Civil liberties (4th ed.). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Haerens, M. (2010). The U.S. Supreme Court (8th ed.). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven
Press.
Kirton, J., & Madunic, J. (2009). Global law (5th ed.). Farnham: Ashgate.
Marshall, T. (2008). Public opinion and the Rehnquist court (3rd ed.). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Melton, B. (2010). The law (1st ed.). New York: Chelsea House Pub.
Schwartz, B. (1988). Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Jackson, and the "Brown" Case. The
Supreme Court Review, 1988, 245-267. doi: 10.1086/scr.1988.3109626
Schwartz, B. (1998). Chief Justice Earl Warren: Super Chief in Action. Journal Of Supreme
Court History, 23(1), 112-132. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5818.1998.tb00128.x
Shaw, M. (2003). International law (1st ed.). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
6

Criminal Procedure
7