how did these 3 cases expanded individual rights?

Question

i know the basis of these cases but i don't know how they expanded individual freedom.

1. mapp v ohio
could it be protecting individual privacy?

2. miranda v arizona
could it be that no individual can be convicted without a trial?

3. roe v wade
could it be privacy?

thanks for the help.

Answer 1

I'm finding it a little hard to believe that you really know all about those 3 cases, since Miranda was not a case about someone being convicted without a trial.

Each of the 3 cases did expand individual freedom. And of the 3 you cited, the first 2 were legitimate interpretations of the Constitution while the last one was not.

Mapp v. Ohio was indeed about protecting individual privacy because it forced police officers to be more diligent about obtaining search warrants before conducting non-consensual searches.

Miranda v. Arizona was about making sure that suspects knew what their basic rights were before police interrogate. This case has nothing at all to do with the idea "that no individual can be convicted without a trial." It is, like Mapp v. Ohio, about what evidence can be allowed at trial.

Roe v. Wade was claimed to be based on "privacy." It was claimed that "privacy" was implied by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment or by the 9th Amendment, whichever one strikes your fancy. The claim was specious. "Privacy" is protected only in a procedural sense, not in a substantive sense.