According to United States Supreme Court Illinois vs. gates case (1983), a totality of circumstances has a standard that does suggest that there exists no single deciding factor. Instead, the justice system should put into considerations all the relative facts and context in the drawing of conclusions. These summaries must encompass the holistic picture of whether there exist probable cause, or if an alleged detention is actually a detention or whether the accused citizen actions were under the color of law. A totality of circumstance basic concept is to ensure the fact patterns from the cases that the courts apply for judgment are actually substantial and follows all the criteria.
From Illinois and Gates, an arrest warrant was issued based on the affidavit lying of the events as they had unfolded. But the question of the circumstance arose because after arrival at home, the Blooming field police searched the car and found only 350lb of marijuana. A further search into the residence revealed additional sums of marijuana and weapons. This according to appellate and supreme courts of Illinois was not part to consider against the Illinois circuit court decision on the unlawfulness of the search conducted based on supreme court ruling on Spinelli vs. United states. In this case the totality of circumstance was changed and to date is varied considerably since then. When Justice Rehnquist delivered his decision, he pointed out the reliability and basis of knowledge and its relevance to the decision made but he forfeited that the elements were not completely separate and independent requirements of every case. According to him these are supposed to illuminate the common sense and whether there is a probable cause to make one believe that the contraband exits in a specific place. This changed the totality of circumstance considerably to date as opposed to what was held then on the concept based on Supreme Court ruling on Spanelli vs. United States. The delivered judgment did vary the totality of circumstance concept significantly since then to what it holds on this date.
The traditional totality of circumstance was used to measure whether or not a defendant’s privilege against the concept of self incrimination was violated by the change that came in Today, the totality of circumstance concept is usd to make a determination of whether a defendant did consent to a search that is warrantless and determining the existence of a probable cause that supports the issuance of an arrest warrant.
How the Totality of Circumstance Concept Has Changed With Search Warrants from the Original Test of Reliability
Traditionally the issuance of warrants was based on the police outlining of the issues has they did unfold in an affidavit. This was before the search is conducted to ascertain the concept of reliability as advocated for by then “original test of reliability.” In traditional warrants, the outlining of the happenings on the affidavit was considered substantial evidence to allow the issuance of a search warrant but this is not the case nowadays. A totality of concept has been varied. Nowadays it calls for the determination of whether the defendant consented to a search without a warrant. In addition, the search warrant issuance depends on whether there exists probable cause to believe there is a need for issuing a search warrant. It can be deduced that the traditional issuance of search warrant was driven by the totality of circumstance concept that a case passed the original test of reliability but in recent time, a search warrant is issued after the determination of the defendant consent to a warrantless search. There exists a really big variance between the traditional totalities of circumstance concept relating to issuing a search warrant based on the original test of reliability and the current advocating of the defendant consent to a free search before the warrant is issued.
How the totality of circumstance concept has changed the Miranda Warnings about the search warrants
Miranda warnings are the rights of those accused of committing a crime. The Miranda rights advocate the informing of a criminal suspect in custody by the United States police of their constitutional rights before they are subjected to any custodial interrogation. The concept is that any elicited incriminating evidence or statement made by a suspect who was not informed of his or her right to decline to make any self incriminating statements and the suspect right to legal counsel will not be admissible evidence unless the suspect does make an origiinal waiver of the rights.
The Miranda rights have changed to the totality of circumstance issuing of search warrants significantly. The traditional warrants of search did not require the suspect knowledge of his rights; it was based on affidavit filled by police. Now, it requires the suspect be made informed of his rights before and questioning and issuing an arrest warrant depends on the defendant consent on a warrantless search.
The totality of circumstance changed the Miranda warnings first in the case of State vs. Grady (2008). This happened when Grady agreed to answer questions within the course of a homicide investigation. The police read to the witness; Grady the self discriminatory rights as being “better safe than sorry.” The police arrested Grady after 2 and half hours of noncustodial interrogation based on the information gathered that he was the killer. The police failed to
Re-administer Miranda warnings and after almost seven hours interrogation duration, it saw Grady make exculpatory statements. Grady applied the court suppression of the statements made on basis that the Miranda rights were not followed but the trial court denied and was convicted with first degree homicide. The trail court did rule against the decree that as per Miranda warnings that any read out rights 1 minute prior to custody are ineffective per se reason being their administration was not given when the suspect was in custody. The totality of circumstance rendered this rule manifestly unreasonable. The indeterminacy in such cases offers the officers an incentive towards the provision of early warnings to ensure the admissibility of the subsequent statements and the maximum awareness of rights.
The totality of circumstance in Grady’s case rule did have the perverse effect of eliminating Miranda warnings on “better safe than sorry” approach resulting to suspects who are less apprised of their rights under the current system. In the State vs. Grady case, the court ruled that two and half hours lying between the suspects provision of Miranda warnings and Grady’s arrest did not affects the rights awareness. This is a significant change of Miranda rights brought about by the totality of circumstance concepts.