Chief Justices Earl Warren and Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Topic
Comparing and contrasting the approaches to criminal procedure by the U.S. Supreme Court under both Chief Justices Earl Warren and William Rehnquist.
Directions
The essay should address the significant decisions and the effect they had on the balance between social order maintenance and individual liberties.
The effects of the Supreme Court’s decisions on law enforcement in the United States.
The Supreme Court’s current approach to balancing civil liberties against public order maintenance.
In the 20th century, the United States was now a country that extensively focused on achieving extensive freedom and social change. One of the ways to achieve these two, the Chief Justices appointed, were expected to spearhead the judicial systems towards a proper state of law and order. Chief Justices Earl Warren and William Rehnquist are two individuals who had a remarkable impact on the criminal justice system due to the distinct approaches they implemented on various issues.
The two individuals had distinct views on the balance of individual liberties and social order maintenance in determining their criminal procedures. During their tenure as Chief Justices in the United States’ Supreme Courts, they each had landmark cases with considerable impacts on the rights of individuals, their liberties, and the standards of law enforcement operations. In the landmark cases, the decisions and rulings illustrate individuals who are the polar opposites of each other. Warren adopted a more “liberal” route on the subject matter since he supported individual liberties and expanding these rights within criminal procedures. Conversely, Rehnquist was more conservative by making decisions that preferred the government’s position when it comes to the prosecution and punishment of offenders over recognizing and expanding individual rights for the suspected criminals.
This paper seeks to compare and contrast the approaches adopted on criminal justice procedures by the two individuals. The discussion will also include the significant decisions and their effects on achieving a balance between the maintenance of social order and individual liberties in the United States and on law enforcement operations. Additionally, the discussion is to look into the Supreme Court’s current approach to balance civil liberties and the maintenance of public order.
Chief Justice Earl Warren Court
Warren was appointed the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice in 1953, and his tenure would last 16 years (Lamb, 1974). During this period, Warren would preside over numerous cases dealing with criminal procedures. The majority of these cases supported the rights and liberties of the individuals. An illustration of his views can be seen in Mallory v. the United States 354 U.S. 449 (1957) and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) cases. Warren’s Supreme Court indicated that the plaintiff, Mallory, in Mallory’s case had his rights infringed by not being advised on his right to counsel, a preliminary examination before a magistrate and the right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination or saying anything that could be used against them in a court of law.
Warren’s Supreme Court indicated that they had violated Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that stipulated that an arrested individual be arraigned before a committing magistrate promptly. Any confession that was held onto for an unreasonable period is considered inadmissible, which was in line with the decision made in McNabb v. the United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943). In Miranda’s case, the Warren Supreme Court would rule that the confession was inadmissible as it violated the Fifth Amendment rule of protection from self-incrimination and one’s right to counsel, as illustrated in the Sixth Amendment. Warren indicated that the Fifth amendment rules on self-incrimination covered for direct confessions and any statements that are considered admissions.
The rulings in Miranda and Mallory Cases changed the criminal procedures for each law enforcement agency. Through Mallory’s decree, law enforcement agencies needed to take their suspects before magistrates without delaying or will have the case dismissed. Miranda’s ruling would change the standards of operating procedures as it developed the Miranda warning that needs to be read out to the suspects during their arrests. The warning encompassed the individual’s right to remain silent as anything they say could be used against them in a court of law and the right to counsel, and in case they cannot afford, the state is to provide one (Maoz, 2011). Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963) also ruled that criminal cases’ suspects needed to be provided counsel (United States Courts, n.d.). Warren would achieve a profound effect on expanding individual liberties and rights regarding criminal procedures. The standards are ensured that the suspects receive a fair share of the processes while allowing law enforcement agencies to maintain social order. Warren individually demonstrated his outrage against law enforcement abuses, which ranged from the warrantless searches or seizures to coerced confessions.
In the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), the landmark decision by Warren’s Supreme Court played a significant function in fighting for the individual liberties for the African American children and individuals in American society (History.com Editors, 2009). The ruling entailed making the separation of public schools based on race unconstitutional. This overturned the Plessey v Ferguson (1896) decision that allowed state-sponsored segregation. Warren’s Court indicated that racial segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause stipulated in the Fourteenth Amendment hence paved the way for integration and civil rights movements. Notably, while Brown’s ruling did not eliminate racial segregation, the decision did foreshadow the social upheaval in American society. It was a judicial milestone as it also occurred when the majority race was still complacent towards integrating the minority groups. Warren provided both social and political leadership by reminding that each American citizen did have a right towards having all his or her constitutional rights protected.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s Court
The appointment of Rehnquist happened in 1986 by President Reagan and had illustrated being a conservative favoring the formation of federalism. His main emphasis was on the states’ reservation of powers stipulated by the Tenth Amendment. Rehnquist was a believer in the rights of states hence would seek to limit any federal control in consideration of the Fourteenth Amendment (Smith, 2002). The majority of the decisions made by Rehquist increased police authority over civil liberties and individual rights. His impact on criminal procedures is evident today. Notably, Rehnquist differed from the ruling in Brown’s case. By 1988, His Court had granted the officials to public schools the right to censor their school publications. This was one of the notable conservative actions.
One of the landmark cases by Rehquist’s Court was Duckworth v Eagan 109 S. Ct. 2875 (1989) that demonstrated his conservativeness. The case involved the stabbing of a woman by Gary Eagan on a beach in Indiana. While Eagan was being read his Miranda rights, the statement contained the wording “If and When You go to Court,” then a lawyer would be appointed for him. During his confession, he realized the document stating his rights has a different language from the one used during his arrest. The difference in the language would lead to Eagan to seek to deem his confession and evidence inadmissible. Rehnquist’s Supreme Court would reject this notion stating that the wording needs not to be precisely the Miranda ruling. The Court indicated that there was no violation of constitutional rights as long as the suspect had their Miranda rights read (Altman, 1990). Rehnquist demonstrated his support for police authority over individual rights and liberties, which would grant law enforcement officers a leeway on wording during the reading of Miranda rights to a suspect.
In the case of Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991), Rehniquest’s Supreme Court would find it objectively reasonable for a law enforcement officer to understand the general consent to search for drugs as an authorization to look into the contents of the paper and the rights of the suspect stipulate in the Fourth Amendment had not been infringed. The case involved a law enforcement officer getting information on Jimeno being at a drug buy. During the stop, the law enforcement officer asked Jimeno to search his property, which the latter consented. It is during the search that the officer found cocaine and arrested Jimenon for possessing a controlled substance. The lower and Florida Supreme Courts have suppressed the cocaine evidence indicating the Fourth Amendment rights have been transgressed since the container was not part of the search. The ruling given by Chief Justice Rehnquist illustrated the support of law enforcement authority over individuals’ liberties and rights. The law enforcement agencies were granted the authority to conduct searches on containers that are not locked in the event of circumstances meeting the objective reasonableness test.
The landmark ruling in Roe v Wade 93 S. Ct. 705; 1973 case would have a significant impact on an individual’s rights. The case involved the right to privacy and specifically the woman’s right to have an abortion in consideration of the due process clause stipulated in the Fourteenth amendment (Landmark Supreme Court Cases, 2020). The ruling indicated that the woman’s right to abort extended until its viability, but Rheinquist’s Court differed from this ruling. Being viable meant the potential ability of one to live outside the womb of the mother. This viability would be placed around seven months or at 24 weeks with consideration of factors such as artificial aid. In his dissenting opinion, Rehnquist indicated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s creators had no intention of protecting the right to privacy. He stated the formers did not recognize that right, and thus, their intention could never be to protect the woman’s decision to undergo an abortion. Rehnquist would further state that the right to privacy has only been protected by the Fourth Amendment, which had prohibited unreasonable searches (Landmark Supreme Court Cases, 2020). The judge would conclude that the issue needed a proper balance of the interests of women with the state’s interest. Thus it was not appropriate for the Court to disease when the state legislatures are in a position to resolve it. This ruling continuously prompted a national debate that is still ongoing on the extent of abortion, specifically its legality.
In the review of the numerous cases handled by the two Chief Justices, it is evident that their philosophies impacted criminal procedures, the law enforcement sector, and also individual rights and liberties. Earl Warren demonstrated being a liberal individual by focusing on the expansion of individual rights and freedoms. He built his reputation for being one of the liberal Chief Justices in the United States Supreme Court. On the other hand, William Rehnquist demonstrated his conservatism through his rulings. He favored motions that would increase law enforcement agencies’ power over the expansion of individual liberties and rights. Notably, they all sought to balance individual rights, liberties, and the maintenance of social order. The two were different sides to a similar coin.
The current approach adopted by the Supreme Court to Balance Civil Liberties and the Maintenance of Public Order.
The Supreme Court faces numerous challenges trying to balance individual rights protection with the promotion of public safety (Khan Academy, 2020). This is due to some issues such as the death penalty, the legislation on gun control, and the collection of digital metadata by the government raising numerous concerns. Notably, some of the ways the Court has looked to strike a balance include the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court’s understanding of the death penalty has undergone a constant change with its recent cases. It prevents states from issuing specific capital punishment uses, such as the death penalty to minors or defendants who are legally judged to be mentally incapacitated.
The Court has worked on balancing public safety and the right to bar arms, considering it has raised significant controversy over the years. The Supreme Court has recently supported the Second Amendment protection of the citizens’ rights to bear guns; thus, striking out the legislation in gun control. This was evident in the cases of D.C. V Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010) (Khan Academy, 2020). On the matter of balancing public safety and protection of individual rights from unreasonable searches and seizures, the National Security Agency continues to contend that it needs to monitor the digital metadata to protect the country from future terrorist attacks. The NSA indicates that the need to get a warrant constantly would impede the protection of public safety. The agency’s critics suggest that the NSA is violating the Fourth Amendment since it does not have the proper warrants to collect it, nor has it stated that it monitors citizens’ information. The Supreme Court is still working on finding the right balance.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court lays a significant function of the functions of various agencies that affect individuals’ rights. Chief Justices Earl Warren and William Rehnquist are two individuals who headed the Judicial systems entirely different due to their distinct philosophies. Nonetheless, they all looked to balance public safety and the protection of individual liberties and rights. Notably, reaching the perfect balance on various issues is still an uphill task for the Supreme Court. Therefore, it takes much consideration and discussion to ensure that achieving that balance does not jeopardize the work of law enforcement agencies nor the constitutional rights and liberties granted to the American citizens.
References
Altman, D. B. (1990). Fifth Amendment: Coercion and Clarity: The Supreme Court Approves Altered Miranda Warnings. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 80(4), 1089.
History.com Editors. (2009, October 27). Brown v. Board of education. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka
Khan Academy. (2020). Balancing individual freedom with public order and safety: Lesson overview (article). Retrieved from https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-civil-liberties-and-civil-rights/us-gov-balancing-individual-freedom-with-public-order-and-safety/a/lesson-summary-balancing-individual-freedom-with-public-order-and-safety
Lamb, C. M. (1974). Making of a Chief Justice Warren Burger on Criminal Procedure 1956-1969. Cornell L. Rev., 60, 743.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases (555) 123-4567, landmark cases.dcwdbeta.com. (2020). Roe v. Wade: Summary of the decision. Retrieved from https://www.landmarkcases.org/roe-v-wade/roe-v-wade-summary-of-the-decision
Mallory v. the United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957). (n.d.). Retrieved January 28, 2016, from www.law.cornell.edu
Maoz, A. (2011). Empty Promises: Miranda Warnings in Noncustodial Interrogations. Mich. L. Rev., 110, 1309.
Smith, S. F. (2002). The Rehnquist Court and Criminal Procedure. U. Colo. L., Rev., 73, 1337.
United States Courts. (n.d.). Facts and case summary – Gideon v. Wainwright. Retrieved from https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-gideon-v-wainwright
