Fact and Fiction in Constitutional Criminal Procedure (original) (raw)
Related papers
Overcoming Miranda: A Content Analysis of the Miranda Portion of Police Interrogations
The authors analyzed the Miranda portion of electronically recorded police interrogations in serious felony cases. The objectives were to determine what percentage of suspects waived their rights, whether the suspects understood their rights before waiving them, and whether the police employed any tactics to induce the suspects to waive their rights. The results of the study revealed that 93% of suspects waived their Miranda rights and talked to the police. Further, it is unlikely that those suspects understood their rights; in fact, the police used a version of the Miranda warning that required a level of reading proficiency that most suspects do not possess. Moreover, the police did very little to ensure that suspects actually understood their rights before waiving them. Finally, the police spoke significantly faster when reading suspects their Miranda rights and, in nearly half of the interrogations, also minimized the importance of the rights. Both of these tactics likely limited the suspect's comprehension of the rights and likely induced them to waive, rather than invoke, their rights. These findings are largely consistent with the limited number of other social science studies that have been published and raise serious doubt about whether suspects' waivers are truly voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, as required by Miranda. Based on these findings, the authors recommend specific reforms to the Miranda warning and to the Miranda process.
Competence to Waive Interrogation Rights and Adjudicative Competence in Adolescent Defendants
Law and Human Behavior, 2005
This study aimed to further clarify the association between interrogative suggestibility and Miranda rights comprehension in adolescents; in particular, we examined whether intellectual ability (IQ) serves as a mediator of this relationship. Participants completed Grisso's Miranda Instruments, the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, and the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Many youth demonstrated poor comprehension of their rights, particularly younger and less intellectually capable adolescents. Both yield and shift components of interrogative suggestibility were inversely related to rights comprehension; however, IQ fully mediated these relationships. Neither demographic variables (gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status after controlling for IQ, and English as a second language (ESL) status) nor previous police experience were significantly associated with rights comprehension in the present sample. The implications of these findings are discussed.
A socio-legal conflict theory of perceptions of criminal injustice
2005
The perception of criminal injustice is common among disadvantaged American racial and ethnic minority groups. This perception of injustice is especially common among highly educated and socially and economically successful African-Americans. It is also well established that encounters between citizens and the police play an important part in such perceptions of racial injustice. Yet, there is much about these perceptions that remains unknown. The fact that perceptions of injustice can be more acute among more, rather than less, advantaged minority group members is a conundrum that poses important explanatory and policy challenges. We believe that a socio-legal conflict theory of crime and punishment can help to address this puzzle. We first elaborate a socio-legal conflict theory by discussing the age structure and comparative racial and ethnic gradients of perceptions of criminal injustice. We then examine the nature of the police contacts that influence the development of these perceptions and the strategies that many minority citizens often learn in adolescence in responding to their contacts with the police. Finally, we speculate about the broader developmental, comparative, and societal implications of minority perceptions of criminal injustice for racial and ethnic relations in America more generally. Our goal is to outline the foundations for a socio-legal conflict theory that can inform research and policy within, as well as beyond, the field of crime and punishment.
The Civil and Criminal Methodologies of the Fourth Amendment
The Yale Law Journal, 1984
The Fourth Amendment 1 controls both criminal and civil law enforcement activities, yet the courts have created distinctive methodologies 2 for deciding cases within each area. They have applied a stricter, more ruleoriented "probable cause" analysis 3 in criminal cases, but have resorted to a more flexible and less rule-bound "balancing" methodology in civil cases. Several recent Supreme Court decisions, 4 however, have begun to close this gap between civil and criminal cases by making balancing unexceptional in criminal cases. The Supreme Court has begun to reshape the Fourth Amendment's criminal methodology in the image of the civil. This Note argues that this recent expansion of the balancing approach is regrettable. Admittedly, it was time for a change in the role of the balancing methodology. We cannot cabin balancing within the civil cases if we take seriously the current explanations of when balancing should take place. But in adjusting the role of balancing, the Court should have restricted its use rather than expanded it. In all but a few types of cases, the traditional methodology of the criminal area offers a more workable and appropriate protection of the personal privacy interests secured by the Fourth Amendment than does balancing. 1. The Fourth Amendment provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. The text makes no distinction between civil and criminal searches and seizures. 2. The "methodologies" discussed in this Note can be defined as the procedures used to formulate Fourth Amendment issues rather than the substantive factors used to determine the outcomes. This Note's analysis begins with the commonplace idea that procedures have their own substantive implications. 3. Probable cause to search is that level of information which would allow a man of reasonable caution to believe that the thing to be searched for or seized will be found in a designated location. Probable cause is usually defined with regard to arrest warrants. See Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76 (1949). The definition changes only slightly for searches, focusing on location rather than likelihood of guilt. See Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 558 (1978). This standard governs most criminal cases, except for stop-and-frisk situations. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officer may search suspect for weapons absent probable cause in order to protect himself). As used in this Note, "probable cause methodology" encompasses the warrant requirement. Before making a search or seizure, investigators must satisfy a magistrate that probable cause actually exists. Most types of probable cause searches or seizures must be warranted. Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 757-60 (1979). 4. See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 103 S. Ct. 3469 (1983) (protective search of individual extends to search of his car); United States v. Place, 103 S. Ct. 2637 (1983) (warrantless seizure of luggage and passenger in airport); Florida v. Royer, 103 S. Ct. 1319 (1983) (plurality opinion) (investigative detention of suspect in airport).
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2020
Through interviews ( n = 40) and surveys ( n = 140) with separate samples of U.S. defense attorneys practicing criminal law in a Northeastern state, we utilize a mixed-methods approach to explore police procedural transgressions (e.g., pretextual stops, overreaching searches) during stops, searches, and seizures. With a structural equation path model, we examine whether and how procedural justice (an assessment of “the means” to control crime) and police effectiveness (an assessment of police performance or “the ends”) affect each other and influence perceptions of police legitimacy. Our findings indicate that procedural justice enhances perceptions of police legitimacy, whereas police effectiveness does not have an effect. Policy implications for developing mechanisms that discourage procedural transgressions by police are discussed.