Miranda vs Arizona
In the years following Miranda v. Arizona, many changes were made to the verdict. The Omnibus Crime and Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 declared that if a suspect voluntarily confessed to a crime within six hours after his or her arrest, this confession could be used as valid evidence in a trial, even if the suspect had not been informed of his or her Miranda rights. The passage of this act was one of the first major modifications to the initial decision. Additionally, there were many other cases that followed Miranda v. Arizona that altered the Miranda decision. The United States Supreme Court cases that occurred soon after the Miranda decision served to clarify certain aspects of the decision. However, after 1969, …show more content…
United States in 1928. In this case, a group of individuals were convicted in U.S. district court of illegally possessing, transporting, and importing intoxicating liquors during Prohibition. Government evidence leading to these convictions was obtained by wiretapping the plaintiffs' telephones. The plaintiffs argued that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure, and appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court where their convictions were upheld. At the time, Chief Justice William Howard Taft delivered the Court's opinion, stating that the language of the Fourth Amendment " . . . can not be extended and expanded to include telephone wires reaching the whole world from the defendant's house or office. The intervening wires are not of his house or office, any more than are the highways along which they are stretched . . . " He clarified his position by adding that a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights will not be violated " . . . unless there has been an official search and seizure of his person or such a seizure of his papers or his tangible material effects or an actual physical invasion of his house `or curtilage' for the purpose of making a seizure." In Katz's case, law enforcement agents had scrupulously adhered to existing standards for applying wiretaps, but did not seek judicial approval (a warrant) for conducting a search and did not report the results of their search to a
In the years following Miranda v. Arizona, many changes were made to the verdict. The Omnibus Crime and Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 declared that if a suspect voluntarily confessed to a crime within six hours after his or her arrest, this confession could be used as valid evidence in a trial, even if the suspect had not been informed of his or her Miranda rights. The passage of this act was one of the first major modifications to the initial decision. Additionally, there were many other cases that followed Miranda v. Arizona that altered the Miranda decision. The United States Supreme Court cases that occurred soon after the Miranda decision served to clarify certain aspects of the decision. However, after 1969, …show more content…
United States in 1928. In this case, a group of individuals were convicted in U.S. district court of illegally possessing, transporting, and importing intoxicating liquors during Prohibition. Government evidence leading to these convictions was obtained by wiretapping the plaintiffs' telephones. The plaintiffs argued that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure, and appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court where their convictions were upheld. At the time, Chief Justice William Howard Taft delivered the Court's opinion, stating that the language of the Fourth Amendment " . . . can not be extended and expanded to include telephone wires reaching the whole world from the defendant's house or office. The intervening wires are not of his house or office, any more than are the highways along which they are stretched . . . " He clarified his position by adding that a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights will not be violated " . . . unless there has been an official search and seizure of his person or such a seizure of his papers or his tangible material effects or an actual physical invasion of his house `or curtilage' for the purpose of making a seizure." In Katz's case, law enforcement agents had scrupulously adhered to existing standards for applying wiretaps, but did not seek judicial approval (a warrant) for conducting a search and did not report the results of their search to a