The exclusionary rule, warrantless searches, and the Miranda warning

In 2004, Bradley Harrison was caught transporting 77 pounds of cocaine by a Canadian police officer. Although clearly guilty, it was ruled that the officer violated Harrison's rights for the stop and search he conducted, which he tried to justify by claiming there were issues with Harrison's license plate. Despite the improper procedure, it was decided that the exclusion of the evidence was unnecessary, and Harrison was sentenced to 5 years in prison in a ruling that would not have been possible in the American legal system (New York Times, 2008).

Although the exclusionary rule, which disallows evidence to be used if the evidence was collected improperly, seems to be a deterrent to police misconduct, it seems to be far too harsh and has the potential to be too large an impact on cases. The idea is appropriate, but its implementation is poor - something that could be easily supported by the fact that the United States has the only legal system of any country that immediately throws out evidence in the event of police misconduct. The exclusionary rule is important in that it provides protection from warrantless searches, but can also interfere with the justice system. It is an imperfect solution to the problem of violations with search and seizure - it can shield those who are guilty, but it also has no benefit to those who are innocent and have done nothing wrong in the first place.

On October 9, a federal judge ruled that evidence was obtained illegally in a case in which a van was caught illegally trafficking tobacco. The van was stopped by Kansas Highway Patrol to inspect for a commercial load, but the judge ruled that the search was not legal. The incident was examined and it was determined that the wholesale business was attempting to avoid paying cigarette taxes (Associated Press, 2009). The type of search was an automobile search, and it was most likely performed without a warrant because the highway patrol officer recognized something about the van and stopped the van at that moment to avoid missing the opportunity (Siegel, 2008). In the end, though, because the evidence was dismissed, the officer's efforts were not enough. (Image from tobaccocampaign.com)

The purpose of a Miranda warning is to protect a criminal suspect. After the court case of Miranda v. The State of Arizona in 1966, when arresting a criminal suspect, the party must be informed of all of his and her rights before an interrogation begins. Generally speaking, if a suspect is not informed of these rights before-hand then testimony given cannot be admissible in court cases. There are several exceptions of course which predominately were stated in case law later on, some of which include:

A witness becomes discovered by a criminal suspect’s testimony, which was not done properly or was ill-informed of their rights of interrogation can still be brought up in court.

Fairly straightforward, but think of Fred and Kelly going out shopping. Fred goes to the food court for thirty minutes, while Kelly continues browsing the stores. Kelly gets “caught” trying to steal $1500 USD worth of electronics and gets taken away by the police. When asked where she was, Kelly states she was with Fred the entire time. Kelly was never informed of her rights, but the prosecution has discovered a witness and that witnesses testimony is not affected by the failure to read off Kelly’s rights.

A witness must make an assertive claim of their rights in-order to stop questioning themselves. This ties in with two rules. The person must make the claim themselves and it must not be ambiguous.

Using the same scenario above, Kelly was now informed of all of her rights properly. She phones her parents about the arrest and they come down to the station where she is being questioned right away. They inform the police that they have hired an attorney for Kelly, however she did not specify that she wants it yet and so the questioning may continue. Down the line, she states, “Maybe I should speak to an attorney before I answer that” and the police coheres her saying it isn’t necessary. Because it was an ambiguous question/claim, she’s still forsaking her rights and not requesting an attorney at that time.

According to the Public Safety Doctrine, any suspect can be questioned on the field without a Miranda warning if the information sought for is relevant to public safety.

A robber goes into a supermarket and holds up a register. As he tries to leave the store, he’s tackled and padded down. During the pad down, the weapon he used was not found on his person, so it was discarded somewhere in the store. Since anybody in the store can find it, even children, it could endanger a lot more people. They may also contaminate the evidence, so the police may question the robber on the spot regarding it (Siegel, 2008). Information on the history of the Miranda warning can be found here.

References
Associated Press (2009). Judge tosses key evidence in Kan. tobacco trafficking case, rules search illegal. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://www.kfsm.com/sns-ap-ks--tobaccoindictment,0,7159605.story

New York Times (2008). American Exception - U.S. Is Alone in Rejecting All Evidence if Police Err. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html

Siegel, Larry J. (2008). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.