If the Due Process Clause of the Constitution protects citizens against the police coercing confessions, then are the requirements of Miranda really necessary? Is the criminal justice system benefited or hindered by requiring law enforcement to administer Miranda warnings before interviewing custodial suspects? What do you think?
Chapter 9 explored various pre-trial identification procedures used by law enforcement in the criminal justice system as well as the use of certain DNA evidence. Read the following questions and post your responses to the discussion board.
Many states have adopted laws which require offenders, as well as arrestees, to submit DNA samples (i.e., cheek cell swabs). Do you believe that this is appropriate? If so, in which cases should it be required? Last week we discussed how a citizen, under the 4th Amendment, may be subject to a full custodial arrest for a fine only offense. Full custodial arrests, as a matter of course, require the collection of personal identifying information such as a photograph (i.e., mug shot), fingerprints, etc. Should the collection of a DNA sample, through the minimally evasive means of taking an inner-cheek swab, be part of this booking process in all cases? In our modern age, is this another piece of information which should be collected at any arrest? If so, why? If not, why not? What limitations, if any should be imposed upon the collection and preservation of this information by the government?
The exclusionary rule was a major focus of Chapter 10. In light of your reading, review the questions below and respond with your thoughts and opinions to the discussion board.
Do you agree with the exclusionary rule or do you believe that it should be abolished? Why or why not? Is there a better solution to achieve the goal/s of this rule without requiring the exclusion of probative, incriminatory evidence of a crime? Is justice ultimately served by the exclusion of evidence of guilt and possibly the dismissal of criminal allegations in response to law enforcement error or misconduct? Why or why not?
Sample Answer
These are complex, fundamental questions that lie at the intersection of constitutional law, criminal procedure, and public policy. Below are responses addressing each topic, formatted as discussion points.
⚖️ Miranda Warnings and the Due Process Clause
The Due Process Clause and the $5^{\text{th}}$ Amendment's protection against self-incrimination were historically intended to prevent police from using physical or psychological coercion to obtain confessions. The Miranda warnings, established in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), were deemed necessary precisely because courts found that the mere environment of a custodial interrogation is inherently coercive, even without explicit police misconduct.
Necessity of Miranda: The warnings are necessary because the Due Process standard (the voluntariness test) was often too subjective and applied after the fact. The Miranda requirement provides a clear, bright-line rule that law enforcement must follow. The act of informing a suspect of their rights (to remain silent, to counsel) is considered a necessary procedural safeguard to dispel the compulsion inherent in the custodial setting. Without it, the burden of proving coercion would remain high for defendants, and police would have less clear guidelines.
Benefits and Hindrances:
Benefit: Miranda enhances the legitimacy of the criminal justice system by ensuring that confessions used in court are truly the product of a free will, not governmental overreach. It also simplifies court review.
Hindrance: Critics argue it hinders law enforcement by making it more difficult to secure confessions, occasionally allowing guilty parties to avoid prosecution on a technicality. However, police have largely adapted, and research suggests that the frequency of confessions has not drastically decreased since Miranda.
My View: Miranda warnings are necessary. They operationalize the $5^{\text{th}}$ Amendment right against self-incrimination in the most vulnerable setting (custody). They serve as a constant reminder that the government must respect individual rights, even when investigating serious crimes.
🧬 DNA Collection from Arrestees and Offenders
The question of mandatory DNA collection for arrestees and offenders involves balancing significant governmental interests in solving crimes against individual privacy and $4^{\text{th}}$ Amendment rights against unreasonable searches.
Appropriateness for Offenders: Requiring convicted offenders (especially those convicted of felonies or sex crimes) to submit DNA is appropriate and strongly supported in the U.S. Supreme Court case Maryland v. King (2013). The government's interest in creating a database to track recidivism and solve future crimes is overwhelming, and convicted individuals have a reduced expectation of privacy.
Appropriateness for Arrestees (Including Fine-Only Offenses): This is the more contentious area. In Maryland v. King (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that taking a cheek swab from a person arrested for a serious offense is a legitimate booking procedure that is no more invasive than fingerprinting or photographing. The Court viewed the swab as a form of identification.