Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 2 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Mallory had br-.-rt he'd too lo:ig without havirg trie:) be,ore a magistrate and charged formally with a crime. It ruled his confession could not be used against him, and he went free.
The court did not announce what the time limit should be for holding a suspect f^r questioning and investigation, but it included in its decision this flat statement, wfhich jolted law-enforcement officials throughout the nation:
“He is not to be taken to police headquarters in order to carry out a process of inquiry that lends, even if not so designed, to eliciting damaging statements to support the arrest and ultimately the guilt.”
Such a view, obviously, placed in jeopardy the right of police to undertake any but the briefest questioning of suspects. The Supreme Court was saying, in effect. “Don’t waste any time questioning a man. Either take him before a magistrate promptly and charge him with a crime, or let him go."
Police were being told to have open-and-shut cases before mak.ng arrests. They were being told either to avoid arresting a suspicious person for investigation of possible connection with a crime, or to arrest, and formally accuse, an ind.? vidual who," although fcftmd in suspicious circumstances, would have been proved innocent through without a serious charge having been entered against his name on police‘records.
By its language, the Supreme Court seemed bent on snatching away a principal tool of crime-detection and law-enforcement.-i.in terrogation. I
There is a historic protection in our law against the protracted} dettention of a citizen without charge and wihout opportunity to appear before a magisrate. This principle is a proper guard against a person’s
64.3%