Individuals Who Changed Policing in the United States
This paper examines two individuals whose actions fundamentally reshaped policing in the United States. It begins with Ernesto Miranda, the criminal defendant whose 1963 arrest and subsequent Supreme Court ruling established the constitutional requirement that police inform arrestees of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights before interrogation. The paper then turns to Frank Serpico, the NYPD officer whose courageous exposure of widespread departmental corruption led to the creation of the Knapp Commission and systemic reforms across American law enforcement. Together, these cases illustrate how individual actions — whether as defendant or whistleblower — can produce lasting institutional change in the criminal justice system.
- Introduction: Overview of two figures who transformed policing
- Ernesto Miranda and the Right Against Self-Incrimination: Miranda's 1963 arrest and Supreme Court ruling
- Impact of the Miranda Decision on American Policing: How Miranda rights changed interrogation procedure
- Frank Serpico and the Exposure of NYPD Corruption: Serpico's whistleblowing against widespread NYPD corruption
- Serpico's Legacy and the Reform of American Law Enforcement: Knapp Commission and systemic police reform
- Conclusion: Lasting impact of individual courage on institutions
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Selects two highly contrasting figures — a criminal defendant and a whistleblower police officer — to show that change in policing can originate from both inside and outside the institution.
- Grounds each case in specific historical facts (dates, locations, legal amendments, commissions) that give the analysis credibility and precision.
- Connects individual actions to systemic outcomes, demonstrating cause-and-effect reasoning appropriate for a criminal justice course.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs parallel case-study structure: each figure is introduced through the specific incident that triggered change, followed by an explanation of the broader institutional consequences. This technique allows the writer to draw implicit comparisons without stating them explicitly, letting the structural symmetry do analytical work.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into two self-contained case studies. The Miranda section covers his 1963 arrest, the legal objections raised at trial, the 1966 Supreme Court ruling, and its ongoing effect on arrest procedure. The Serpico section covers the scale of NYPD corruption, Serpico's whistleblowing, the Knapp Commission, and the broader reform of American policing. Both sections follow a chronological narrative-to-impact arc and are supported by consistent citation of two primary sources.
Introduction
Two individuals — one a criminal defendant and one a police officer — produced some of the most significant and enduring changes in the history of American law enforcement. Their stories illustrate how individual actions, whether in a courtroom or on the streets of New York City, can reshape an entire institution.
Ernesto Miranda and the Right Against Self-Incrimination
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, on suspicion of rape based strictly on circumstantial evidence — specifically, a description of the assailant's car and a partial license plate number furnished to police by the victim's brother (Schmalleger, 2009). While in police custody, Miranda was interrogated for two hours without the presence of an attorney. During that interrogation, he was informed that he had been positively identified. He was then identified in person by the victim, after which he confessed and signed a written confession of guilt to the rape charge.
His court-appointed attorney later objected to the prosecution's introduction of the written confession at trial on two specific grounds. First, it violated the defendant's right under the Fifth Amendment against compelled self-incrimination. Second, it violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment to be represented by legal counsel in connection with any criminal charges brought by the state. The case was eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 in a ruling that overturned the conviction and laid out specific rules that have governed American police arrest and interrogation procedure ever since (Schmalleger, 2009).
References
Delattre, E. (2006). Character and cops: Ethics in policing. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Schmalleger, F. (2009). Criminal justice today: An introductory text for the 21st century. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.