Chapter 8 introduced you to the laws governing interviewing ✓ Solved

Chapter 8 introduced you to the laws governing interviewing criminal suspects and the use of their statements as evidence of their crimes. Read the following questions and post your responses to the discussion board. 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?

Paper for above instructions

The legal framework governing custodial interrogation has evolved over decades of constitutional interpretation, balancing the need for effective law enforcement with the protection of individual rights. While the Due Process Clause prohibits coerced confessions, the principles established in Miranda v. Arizona remain essential because they operationalize this protection in practical settings where citizens often do not understand their rights (US Supreme Court, 1966). The Due Process Clause is broad and reactive—it prevents the police from engaging in misconduct but does not affirmatively ensure that suspects understand their options. Miranda warnings, however, are proactive procedural safeguards that ensure individuals are aware of their right to silence and counsel before interrogation. Without these explicit warnings, courts would be left to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a confession was voluntary, resulting in inconsistency, confusion, and expanded opportunities for coercion. Miranda therefore strengthens constitutional protections by making them accessible and understandable, particularly for vulnerable suspects unfamiliar with legal processes.

The criminal justice system benefits significantly from requiring law enforcement to administer Miranda warnings. While critics argue that Miranda slows investigations or discourages confessions, empirical research shows that most suspects still waive their rights (Leo, 2008). By establishing clear procedural guidelines, Miranda reduces the likelihood that courts will suppress statements due to ambiguous circumstances or improper interrogation tactics. It also safeguards police legitimacy by promoting transparency during custodial questioning. When warnings are properly given and waivers documented, confessions become more legally defensible and less susceptible to suppression on constitutional grounds (Weisselberg, 2014). Conversely, removing or weakening Miranda protections could undermine public trust, increase wrongful convictions, and create opportunities for coercive interrogation practices. Ultimately, Miranda ensures fairness, clarity, and reliability in the criminal justice process.

Chapter 9’s discussion of pre-trial identification highlights another constitutional tension: the growing use of DNA collection. Many states require both offenders and arrestees to submit DNA samples through minimally invasive cheek swabs. Supporters argue that DNA collection is a powerful investigative tool that promotes public safety by identifying repeat offenders, solving cold cases, and exonerating innocent defendants (National Institute of Justice, 2022). This practice has precedent; in Maryland v. King, the Supreme Court upheld DNA collection from arrestees charged with serious offenses, comparing it to fingerprinting and photographing during booking (US Supreme Court, 2013). DNA assists in verifying identity, linking suspects to crime scenes, and preventing wrongful arrests. However, because DNA contains highly personal genetic information, critics argue that its collection should not be universal.

Whether DNA should be collected from all arrestees requires balancing privacy rights with public safety needs. DNA contains far more sensitive information than traditional biometric identifiers, revealing biological relationships, health predispositions, and genetic traits (ACLU, 2023). Mandatory collection for every arrest—including minor offenses or fine-only violations—risks expanding government databases beyond what is necessary for law enforcement purposes. A reasonable position is that DNA collection should be limited to felony arrests, violent crimes, sex offenses, and crimes where biological evidence is central to investigation. Such targeted collection protects individual privacy while still leveraging DNA’s investigative power. Additionally, individuals who are arrested but not convicted should have automatic expungement of their DNA profiles to prevent unjust long-term retention.

The debate over universal DNA collection also intersects with the Fourth Amendment’s standards for searches and seizures. While cheek swabs are physically minimal, the information they reveal is not. The government must therefore impose strict limits on how DNA data is stored, accessed, and used (National Academies, 2020). Any system that collects DNA must include mandatory deletion for non-convictions, constraints on non-forensic analysis, and protections against unauthorized sharing or database expansion. Without such limits, universal DNA collection risks becoming an unchecked surveillance tool rather than an investigative resource.

Chapter 10’s focus on the exclusionary rule highlights one of the most debated doctrines in constitutional criminal procedure. The exclusionary rule mandates the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, preventing law enforcement from benefiting from unconstitutional searches or seizures (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961). Supporters argue that exclusion is essential to protecting civil liberties because it provides a meaningful deterrent against police misconduct. Without exclusion, constitutional rights would be merely symbolic, as officers could violate them without consequence. The exclusionary rule also preserves judicial integrity by ensuring that courts do not condone or legitimize unlawful behavior (Kamisar, 2003). In this sense, exclusion furthers—not obstructs—justice by reinforcing the rule of law.

Critics, however, contend that exclusion sometimes allows guilty individuals to avoid responsibility, undermining public safety. They argue that society suffers when probative evidence is withheld from juries, and alternative remedies—such as civil suits or internal discipline—could be more balanced solutions. Yet these alternatives have repeatedly proven ineffective. Civil litigation is complex, slow, and rarely successful against individual officers (Schwartz, 2020). Internal disciplinary processes lack transparency and often fail to impose meaningful consequences. Exclusion remains the only remedy that directly impacts case outcomes, thereby creating real incentives for police departments to train officers properly, follow constitutional procedures, and implement accountability systems.

Justice is ultimately served by the exclusionary rule because its purpose is not to reward criminals but to protect the rights of all citizens. The rule ensures that constitutional protections remain enforceable and meaningful. When courts exclude illegally obtained evidence, they affirm that the government must follow the law even when pursuing criminal prosecutions. This reinforces public trust in the justice system and helps prevent wrongful convictions—an outcome as damaging to society as letting the guilty go free. The exclusionary rule is not perfect, but it remains the most effective and principled tool for ensuring that policing operates within constitutional boundaries. Any system that prioritizes punishment over constitutional fidelity risks undermining the very foundations of justice.

References

1. US Supreme Court. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
2. Leo, R. “Police Interrogation and American Justice.” Harvard University Press, 2008.
3. Weisselberg, C. “Mourning Miranda.” California Law Review, 2014.
4. National Institute of Justice. “DNA Evidence Basics.” 2022.
5. US Supreme Court. Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013).
6. American Civil Liberties Union. “Genetic Privacy and Forensic Databases.” 2023.
7. National Academies of Sciences. “Forensic DNA Analysis Report.” 2020.
8. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
9. Kamisar, Y. “The Exclusionary Rule Debate.” Michigan Law Review, 2003.
10. Schwartz, J. “Qualified Immunity and Police Accountability.” Yale Law Journal, 2020.