Editing Earl Warren (section)

====Criminal procedure====
In the early 1960s, the Court increasingly turned its attention to criminal procedure, which had traditionally been primarily a domain of the states. In ''[[Elkins v. United States]]'' (1960), Warren joined with the majority in striking down the "Silver Platter Doctrine," a loophole to the [[exclusionary rule]] that had allowed federal officials to use evidence that had been illegally gathered by state officials. The next year, in ''[[Mapp v. Ohio]]'', the Court held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures" applied to state officials.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=372–376}} Warren wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Terry v. Ohio]]'' (1968) in which the Court established that police officers may frisk a criminal suspect if they have a [[reasonable suspicion]] that the suspect is committing or is about to commit a crime.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=466–468}} In ''[[Gideon v. Wainwright]]'' (1962), the Court held that the Sixth Amendment required states to furnish publicly funded attorneys to all criminal defendants accused of a [[felony]] and unable to afford counsel. Prior to ''Gideon'', criminal defendants had been guaranteed the right to counsel only in federal trials and [[capital punishment|capital]] cases.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=403–406}}

In ''[[Escobedo v. Illinois]]'' (1964), the Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal suspects the right to speak to their counsel during police interrogations. ''Escobedo'' was limited to criminal suspects who had an attorney at the time of their arrest and requested to speak with that counsel. In the landmark case of ''[[Miranda v. Arizona]]'', Warren wrote the majority opinion, which established a right to counsel for every criminal suspect and required police to give criminal suspects what became known as a "[[Miranda warning]]" in which suspects are notified of their right to an attorney and their [[right to silence]]. Warren incorporated some suggestions from Brennan, but his holding in ''Miranda'' was most influenced by his past experiences as a district attorney. Unlike many of the other Warren Court decisions, including ''Mapp'' and ''Gideon'', ''Miranda'' created standards that went far beyond anything that had been established by any of the states. ''Miranda'' received a strong backlash from law enforcement and political leaders.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=456–460}} Conservatives angrily denounced what they called the "handcuffing of the police."<ref>{{cite book|editor1-first=Ronald|editor1-last=Kahn|editor2-first=Ken I.|editor2-last=Kersch|title=The Supreme Court and American Political Development|year=2006|url=https://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0700614397?keywords=miranda%20%26%2334%3Bcrime%20rates%26%2334%3B&p=S04N&checkSum=%252FyIgYm2ybgibk6P%252BM%252FG9LcucFd6ieUBSkCM%252FVsFiLs0%253D|page=442|publisher=University Press of Kansas |isbn=978-0-7006-1439-4 }}</ref>