THE CORROSION OF THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

– September 23, 2006

An effective criminal justice system is the practical foundation of every society. No democracy can exist without just laws and efficient law enforcement. The more equitable and efficient the law enforcement is the faster nations are able to develop and meet the needs of their people. But if the system is ineffective and justice is being repeatedly denied, such a situation can hinder a country’s development. In the long run an unfair or ineffective criminal justice system can undermine the ethical base of a society and bring the collapse of law and order. In Western states, where the rule of law holds, barring violence, justice can only be undermined by passing laws that prevent the proper application of justice. Ancient Romans used to say “Summus ius, summa iniuria” – ‘The most extreme law is the greatest injustice.’ or ‘The utmost legal formalities are the utmost injustice.’ History shows that degeneration of the criminal justice system contributes greatly to the downfall of states, and is a sign of rot within a political system.

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The purpose of the Amendment was obvious: to protect people’s right to privacy and prevent violations of that right by prohibiting unreasonable and unauthorized searches and seizures of one’s property. The Amendment itself does not specify the consequences for conducting unauthorized searches, nor does it mandate the exclusion of evidence before state courts. For the first 170 years after the adoption of the Amendment, such a situation seemed not an issue at all. In fact, in the case of Wolf v. Colorado, 338 US 25 (1949), the Supreme Court decided that “In a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure.” The Court concluded that though exclusion of evidence might be an effective way to deter unreasonable searches, other existing methods could be equally effective and would not fall below the minimum standards assured by the Due Process Clause.

MAPP v. OHIO

The situation changed in 1961, when the Supreme Court of the United States reached a controversial verdict in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, pronouncing that “All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court.”

The case sprang from an incident that occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, on May 23rd, 1957. Mrs. Dollree Mapp was an owner of a two-family house and was renting some of her rooms to outside tenants. On that date, three police officers appeared at her door and requested entrance into her premises to search for a bombing suspect. Her lawyer advised her to deny the policemen entry to her house without a search warrant. A few hours later, the police officers returned and searched the premises. When she protested they handed her a piece of paper, which later turned out to have nothing to do with the requested search warrant. Mrs. Mapp took the document, hid it under her blouse, and refused to give it back to the officers. At that moment evidence against her was found and she was handcuffed. The police officers found in her apartment a hand-drawn picture of “a very obscene nature” and four “lascivious” books. Charges were brought against her and she was subsequently convicted of possession of obscene materials. After the Appellate Court upheld the decision, she appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The respective parties in the action never raised an issue of illegality of the search. Only one non-governmental organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, attacked the legality of the search and seizure of evidence in Mrs. Mapp’s house. Nevertheless, the controversial verdict was reached. Four justices agreed that the Fourth Amendment had been violated. One justice held that it was the First Amendment that had been violated, another that it was the Fifth Amendment that had been breached. Three other justices argued that the Fourth Amendment was not even an issue in the proceedings before the Court.

This contentious case, which has had an enormous impact on the American criminal justice system and has affected the lives of millions of Americans, was decided based solely on the views of four justices. Seldom in the history of democracy has the fate of millions been vested in the hands of so few.

The Court noted that the outcome of the verdict would be that in some cases criminals would go free because law enforcement officers made a blunder. Nevertheless, in the Court’s opinion, nothing justifies the violation of laws by the police and the government in general. As stated in the verdict, “Nothing can destroy the government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.” Thus the Supreme Court of the United States gave more significance to stringent observance of procedural laws than to the proper administration of justice. The reasoning presented by the Court is a case of “Burning the house to roast the pig.” The exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment was not needed to prevent unlawful searches. More appropriate, and not obstructive to the criminal justice system, would be if law enforcement officers who violated the Fourth Amendment were subject solely to personal liability.

COOLIDGE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE

The best example of the harmfulness of the exclusionary rule laid down in Mapp v. Ohio can be seen in the case of Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971). The defendant in this action, Edward Coolidge, killed a fourteen year old girl who was living with her family in Manchester, New Hampshire. Soon after, Coolidge came under reasonable suspicion of murdering the young girl. The police presented the evidence already gathered in the case, to the Attorney General of New Hampshire, who issued arrest and search warrants for Coolidge’s automobile and house. The defendant was arrested and additional incriminating evidence was obtained from defendant’s car and residence, including his firearms, which clearly linked Coolidge to the murder of the child. He was afterwards sentenced to life in prison. But the Supreme Court reversed this decision, pointing out that the search and seizure of the defendant’s property were unconstitutional and thus the evidence so obtained was inadmissible in a court of law. The Court held that the search warrant issued by the Attorney General of New Hampshire was invalid because the official was not a “neutral and detached magistrate”. Coolidge was freed, although there was no doubt that he committed a horrible crime. In this exemplary case, justice was denied just by the utmost observance of the law. Summus ius, summa iniuria, as the Ancient Romans might say.

COLLAPSE OR THE HICCOUGHS?

Harold J. Rothwax, judicial activist, New York State judge and author of the book Guilty: The Collapse of Criminal Justice, has said that: “Suppressing the evidence is suppressing the truth.” A criminal should not go free simply because during the collection of evidence some procedural mistakes were made. Evidence gathered through the violation of rules should still be admissible in criminal trials in state courts, while the violations of the Forth Amendment should be dealt with in a different way.

As Justice Hugo Black stated in his separate opinion in the case of Mapp v. Ohio – “The Fourth Amendment does not itself contain any provision expressly precluding the use of such evidence, and I am extremely doubtful that such a provision could properly be inferred from nothing more than the basic command against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Furthermore he referred to the Boyd doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court in 1886 in the case of Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, which stated that “Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”

The above cases show that, over the last few decades, the position of the Supreme Court on the issue of Fourth Amendment protections has changed significantly. The current interpretation of the Constitution takes an inflexible and literal understanding of its provisions and the strictest observance of legal formalities. Though the Fourth Amendment was adopted back in 1791, the requirements recently created by the Supreme Court on illegal search and seizure were unknown to past generations. The original, efficient criminal justice system contributed to the development of a wealthy and prosperous society. Those, who see the recent developments as signs of the corrosion of the criminal justice system, are right to worry.

by Sebastian Aulich

Related articles:

USA: Errors of criminal justice system - June 1, 2006