Approaches to Criminal Procedure: U.S Supreme Court

Introduction 

As the nation approached the 1950s, the United States became more concerned with the need for freedom and social change. The Supreme Court is regarded as the custodian of the country’s laws. However, it also remains critical to note that the leadership of the Supreme Court determines its overall philosophy in handling and determining cases. The two Supreme Court Chief Justices that left a mark in the US court system as having different views and guiding principles included Earl Warren and William Rehnquist. Warren was viewed as a liberal during his time as the Chief Justice while Rehnquist leaned towards the conservative side. Although many considered the two Chief Justices as Republican, they showed various differences in making various decisions. Social order and individual liberties are at the heart of the American constitution (Shugerman, 2012). Most of the cases touching on these areas would often reach the level of the Supreme Court with the lower courts, media, and civilians remaining keen to acquire the final directive with regards to the case at hand. In dealing with social order and individual liberty, Warren and Rehnquist often used approaches that either differed or showed similarities. 

Compare and Contrast 

First, it remains significant to note that Warren served as the country's chief justice for 16 years between 1953 and 1969 (Shugerman, 2012). During this period, the Supreme Court showed that it had a profound impact not only on politics but also on governance. The court during Warren's time played a vital role in activism. It acted as an innovative tribunal and redefined the meaning of the constitution on numerous occasions. Following the retirement of Warren Burger in 1986, William Rehnquist assumed the office of the chief justice. He added to the long list of conservative figures at the Supreme Court. Therefore, his appointment meant that the there was an air of expectation from the country that the Supreme Court would finally make conservative-inspired decisions in cases. The Warren court was known for its emphasis on individual liberties especially as the country attempted to end the historical injustices that had caused immense suffering to particular groups living in the US. The court played a fundamental role in outlawing racial segregation in the American public schools thus signaling the end of the draconian Jim Crow laws that had a significant impact on the education system. The Supreme Court under Rehnquist also showed a propensity towards protecting individual rights when it made landmark decisions such as the protection of pregnant workers and covering illegal aliens with political asylum. 

Most importantly, the two courts played a significant role in protecting human rights and contribute to the Amendment clauses that further ensured that human rights became a mainstay in America's history. Before his ultimate retirement in 1969, chief justice Warren was asked to name some of the most critical decisions that he oversaw. In his assessment, he named some of the far-reaching changes that he promoted as far as civil rights and the rights and the rights of the accused are concerned. The courts also emphasized the political power of the citizens, especially during voting. On the other hand, the Rehnquist courts emphasized the Equal Protection Clause stipulated in the Fourth Amendment. One of the cases where the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause became apparent was in the case of City of Boerne v Flores which prompted the court to relook at the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

The Court under Warren improved saw the rise of the civil rights movement in the country. In the Brown v Board decision, the court affirmed that "all racial discrimination sponsored, supported, or encouraged by the government is unconstitutional" (Kamisar, 2005). This was a social upheaval in the country. It was not only an emphasis on individual rights but a movement towards equality and restoration of social order in the country. It, therefore, set the center stage for the desegregation process that continued for the next decades to come. The Warren court also made several reapportionment decisions which enabled every citizen’s vote to count. Similarly, through its conservative philosophy, the Supreme Court under Rehnquist made several efforts to restore social order in the nation. One of the decisions that acted towards this direction was when it gave the public school officials the mandate to censor school plays and magazines. As such, this was seen as a move to restore morals and ethics in the society that had long suffered from inappropriate behavior. 

One significant difference that was seen between the courts under the two different chief justices had to deal with the police and criminal defense. The Warren court was viewed as a staunch protector of the criminal defendants. It made a string of controversial decisions touching on several areas including Miranda, Gideon, Escobedo, and Mapp among others (Driver, 2012). It, therefore, expanded the Bill of Rights to protect further individuals who had significantly been by the federal or state authorities for committing crimes. In so doing, the court was primarily seen as acting contrary to the electorate's increasing fear of crime. It was also viewed as a court that protected criminals and on the other hand jeopardizing the critical role that police officers played in ending crime. On the contrary, the Rehnquist court, on the other hand, was largely seen as an institution that increased the police power and mandate. In May 1988, the court made an overwhelming decision that would improve the position of the police in criminal justice. In a 6-2 decision, the court determined that the police, without the need for a warrant, might search trash and garbage left outside people's residential premises as a way of looking for evidence to serve in criminal justice. Contrary to Warren's court, this was primarily viewed as a legitimate fight against crime in the country. 

In the many decisions that the Warren court had made, it was massively discredited for going against the conservative nature expected out of it (Driver, 2012). It was hell-bent to assert social order at the expense of morals consideration in the country. Also, it was accused of institutionalizing drastic changes that the country had not prepared itself to embrace. It began by prohibiting prayers in the public schools. In the 1950s, it banned the anti-Communist legislation. Conservatives saw it as a court that overprotected the rights of the criminals and forced school integration. Contrary to the moral of the country, it encouraged pornography. On the other hand, the court under Rehnquist remained steadfast to assert its conservative tendency in many of the decisions that it made. In an 8-0 decision, the court protected Reverend Jerry Falwell against a lawsuit that was spearheaded by the “Hustler Magazine” (Smith, 2014). It further enhanced the study of creationism in public schools and the protection of the vulnerable including the expectant mothers and illegal immigrants. 

Supreme Court and Law Enforcement 

The Warren's court was viewed mainly as a protector of the rights of the criminal defendant. It, therefore, led to increased criticism with critics asserting that it "handcuffed" the police. It provided the defendants with the "privilege against incrimination and right to counsel before trial" (Kamisar, 2005). Some of the cases that culminated in this consideration included the Miranda v. Arizona and the United States v. Wade. The Miranda v. Arizona invalidated self-incrimination by preventing the likelihood of an involuntary confession. The United States v. Wade, on the other hand, annulled the lineup identification (Lewis & Rose, 2014). Another breakthrough in criminal defense that was seen in during Warren's tenure as the chief justice regarded the unreasonable searches and seizures law emphasized in the Mapp v. Ohio case. The overarching provision here was that any evidence obtained without consideration of the Fourth Amendment would not be admitted in a court of law. With such provisions, it is normally thought that Warren's court played a fundamental role in protecting the rights of the defendant during the criminal procedure. 

On the other hand, the Rehnquist court was primarily regarded as a protector of law enforcement. In many of the cases, "Justice Rehnquist either voted against the defendant or, concurring in the result, expressed serious reservations about a pro-defendant opinion" (Smith, 2014). Furthermore, the court sought to introduce changes to the somewhat rigid Miranda laws that came into full effect during Warren's time. The Rehnquist court sought to redefine the meaning of coercion in the provision of evidence. The court in 1988 ruled that the police, without a warrant, may conduct searches on garbage that people leave outside their houses. As such, this was seen as a negotiation of the previous strict interpretation of the Fourth Amendment by the Warren court. 

Supreme Court’s Current Approach to Balancing Civil Liberties against Public Order Maintenance 

As a result of the efforts of the two courts described above, the criminal procedure today has become a struggle to balance between effective prevention of crime and the regulation of civil liberties. The Supreme Court today continues to contend with the challenge of protecting civil liberties and maintaining law and order. The struggle emanates from the liberalism and conservatism seen by Warren and Rehnquist respectively. Warren began activism that has today led to the consideration of human rights when dealing with crime prevention. The increasing security demands accompanied by the civil rights movement have meant that the court has tried to exercise caution in their decisions to ensure that they achieve the right balance. However, it remains significantly difficult for the courts to escape criticism as a result of the controversy emanating from issues surrounding civil liberties and police powers. 

An example of a case that would explain this conundrum was the 2016 Utah v. Strieff. After an anonymous tip citing narcotic activities, the police officers launched surveillance on the premises of the defendant. AS the defendant tried to move out of the apartment, one police officer stopped him. However, it later came to be known that the stop was not made on sufficient grounds hence making it unlawful. However, the Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, asserted that the search did not go contrary to the Fourth Amendment so long as there was a valid warrant not associated with the conduct that led to the stop (Hoffer et al. 2018). Liberal justices criticized the outcome citing that the decision provided a platform for the violation of human rights. 

Conclusion 

Warren and Rehnquist are two of the most studied chief justices due to their contribution in shaping the laws of the country. In dealing with social order and individual liberty, Warren and Rehnquist often used approaches that either differed or showed similarities. In essence, Warren was liberal-minded while Rehnquist showed conservatism. Although both showed signs of protecting human rights, Warren was more concerned with both the restoration of social order and enhancement of human rights. Rehnquist was known as a custodian of morals and strict disciplinarian who believed in empowering the criminal justice to fight crime in the country. However, in the words of Warren, civil liberties must remain at harmony with public order maintenance at all times. 

References 

Kamisar, Y. (2005). How Earl Warren's Twenty-Two Years in Law Enforcement Affected His Work as Chief Justice. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 3, 11. 

Hoffer, P. C., Hoffer, W. H., & Hull, N. E. H. (2018). The Supreme Court: An Essential History. University Press of Kansas. 

Shugerman, J. H. (2012). The People's Courts: Pursuing Judicial Independence in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Driver, J. (2012). The Constitutional Conservatism of the Warren Court. California Law Review , 1101-1167. 

Smith, C. E. (2014). The Rehnquist Court and criminal punishment. Routledge. 

Lewis, D. A., & Rose, R. P. (2014). Case Salience and the Attitudinal Model: An Analysis of Ordered and Unanimous Votes on the Rehnquist Court. Justice System Journal , 35(1), 27-44.