RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Amendments

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The 4th Amendment protects us against

searches unless there is probable cause and a warrant forProbable cause more than bare suspicion,

common sense standardSearching for illegal items or evidenceSeizure of contrabandArrest or detainment

○ The 4th is tied to the 5th because it provides for your due process rights and prohibits self-incrimination

Probable Cause When does the 4th

Amendment apply?Search by

government or government agent

Can search areas in which evidence may be found

Areas where an expectation of privacy is shown○ Phone booth-yes○ School locker-no○ House-yes○ Trash-no

Warrant requirements Gray areas of probable cause Neutral magistrate Supporting evidence Informants Specificity very important Execution of warrant

Exceptions to the 4th Amendment The Plain View Rule Incident to Arrest Motor Vehicle search

for contraband Inventory search of

impounded evidence Consent search

Includes Facebook, MySpace, websites

Border/Airport search

Hot pursuit Emergency situation Evanescent

evidence doctrineEvidence that could

disappear i.e. blood Stop and Frisk Rule

(Terry pat downs)

Exclusionary Rule-evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court Weeks v. US (1914)-

exclusionary rule applied at federal level

Wolf v. Colorado (1949) – Court incorporates 4th Amendment

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) – exclusionary rule incorporated Mapp charged with owning

obscene books even though police were looking for an urban terrorist

More 4th Amendment cases

Good Faith ruleUS v Leon (1985)Arizona v Evans (1995)

Pat downsTerry v Ohio (1968)

Plain viewHarris v. US (1968)

Consent searchGeorgia v. Randolph (2006)

Student searchesNew Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

More 4th Amendment cases

Arizona v. Johnson (2009)Court ruled a police

officer may search a suspect in a routine traffic stop if they believe the suspect to be armed and dangerous with no reason to believe that they are committing a crime.

Safford United School District No. 1 v. Redding (2009)Court ruled 8-1 that

the intrusiveness of a strip search of an 8th grader did not match what the administrators were looking for (2 Advil pills)

Chipping away at the exclusionary rule Herring v. US (2009) Bennie Herring was

arrested on based on a warrant that was not removed from the computer system mistakenly

A 5-4 Court ruled that the police acted in good faith, more importantly the exclusionary rule is not violated

“…the exclusionary rule is not an individual right…and the benefits of deterrence must outweigh the costs…the cost…is letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free”

Coincidently, Roberts in 1983 set out on a campaign to abolish the exclusionary rule

Kentucky v. Hollis (2011) After witnessing a drug deal, the

police followed a suspect to an apartment but wasn’t sure which apartment he entered.

Fearing the suspect might be getting rid of evidence, they knocked and announced themselves and then busted down the door. They did not find the original suspect, but Hollis who was smoking pot with three others and surrounded by drug paraphernalia. He was arrested.

The original suspect was later caught.

Hollis challenged his arrest because the police conducted a warrantless search on the wrong dwelling where police thought they had exigent circumstances.

In an 8-1 decision, the Court decided in favor of the police

Justice Alito wrote the decision arguing the police were acting in good faith and there was an exigency as police could hear what they believed was the destruction of evidence

Alito explained that people have no obligation to respond to the knock or, if they do open the door, allow the police to come in. He said, “Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame for the warrantless exigent-circumstances search that may ensue.”

United States v. Jones (2012)United States v. Jones (2012)

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that placing a GPS tracking device on a drug suspect’s car without a warrant violated his 4th Amendment right to privacy and “unreasonable search and seizure”. The Court has yet to rule

on cellphone tracking

Riley v. California (2014)

The Court ruled 9-0 that police need a warrant to search a suspect’s cell phone because it is not a dangerous weapon and information on the phone can be saved by seizing it and waiting for a warrant, even though in this case the pictures on the phone tied the accused to a gang shooting Phone was searched following an

arrest after the accused car was searched after being impounded for a suspended license

No person shall be held to answer for a crime, unless on an …indictment of a grand jury, nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy …; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Grand juries determine if enough evidence exists to justify a trial and the charge

Double jeopardy protects accused from being tried twice for the same crime

Eminent domain-allows the government to buy private property and develop it for public useNorth East MallNew Dallas Cowboy stadiumHighwaysKelo v. City of New London (2005)

5th Amendment Self-incrimination

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)-the Miranda rule requires that people under arrest must be informed prior to interrogation of their due process rights, the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney○ When does an interrogation start?○ Do the police always have to read you your

rights? Miranda had confessed raping an 18 year old girl (and

then dropped her off and asked her to pray for him)○ Was also discharged from Army for being a peeping

tom○ Sold autographed cards for $1.50 after trial○ Stabbed in a bar fight in 1976

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you at interrogation time and at court.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Powell v. Alabama (1932) Scottsboro Boys case, counsel required in capital cases

Betts v. Brady (1942) right to attorney on case by case basis Justice Black dissents

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) – Gideon is arrested for his 3rd

misdemeanor, tried and convicted after asking and being denied a lawyer

Gideon files a pauper’s petition to Supreme Court which rules in his favor that all people deserve the assistance of council despite the crime

Hugo Black writes majority decision

Rompilla v. Beard (2005) – good counsel must be provided

6th Amendment continued Giles v. California (2008)

He killed his girlfriend who had 3 weeks prior told the police he threatened to kill her

Giles claimed self-defense and presented evidence of her craziness

The Court sided with GilesDissent: “This case involves a witness who, crying as

she spoke, told police how her former boyfriend (the defendant) had choked her, opened a folding knife, and threatened to kill her. Three weeks later he did…The Court concludes that he may not have forfeited his [6th Amendment] right. In my view, however, he has.”

More 6th Amendment Michigan v. Bryant (2011)

Anthony Covington was dying in a gas station parking lot from a gunshot wound. In his last breaths he told the police what had happened, naming Bryant as suspect.

Emergency services arrived at Bryant’s house and found evidence that matched Covington’s description of events.

Bryant was arrested a year later and convicted partly due to Covington’s statements.

Bryant challenged his conviction arguing he did not have an opportunity to confront the witness.

In a 6-2 decision the Court supported the police believing the police were in an emergency situation and Covington was not being interrogated but questioned to meet “an ongoing emergency.”

Justice Scalia and Ginsburg dissented. “Today’s tale—a story of five officers conducting successive examinations of a dying man with the primary purpose, not of obtaining and preserving his testimony regarding his killer, but of protecting him, them, and others from a murderer somewhere on the loose—is so transparently false that profession to believe it demeans this institution…For all I know, Bryant has received his just desserts. But he surely has not received them pursuant to the procedures that our Constitution requires. And what has been taken away from him has been taken away from all of us.” Justice Scalia

6th Amendment—right to impartial jury

Importance of jury trialsJuries are a product of

our distrust of government beginning in the 1700s

In Texas, you can get a jury for everything

Criticism about juries is unfounded

Large interests are trying to get rid of juries

8th Amendment --excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)Court upholds right of states to have a death

penalty as long as a 2-part trial process is provided and a legislature provides standards in what crimes receive the death penalty

Death must not be “cruel and unusual”What about juvenile crimes?

○ Should juveniles be put to death for adult crimes? Roper v. Simmons (2005)

What about white-collar crimes and blue-collar crimes?

8th Amendment cases of interest Baze v. Rees (2008)

Lethal injection is an acceptable method of capital punishment (7-2 vote)

Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “Some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution—no matter how humane—if only from the prospect of error in following the required procedure. It is clear, then, that the Constitution does not demand the avoidance of all risk of pain in carrying out executions.”

Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) Is the death penalty a permissible sentence under the 8th

Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment for the crime of child rape, when the crime did not result in the death of the victim?

Brown v. Plata (2011) Supreme Court rules that California prison overcrowding is cruel and unusual and its population needs to be reduced California’s 33 prisons are supposed to hold 80,000 prisoners,

but holds almost 145,000 which threatens the health of the inmates (in some cases 54 people have to share 1 toilet)

May 2012 the stay of execution of a Texas inmate was granted because the state was giving antipsychotic drugs to make him sane in order to execute him

Recent decisions Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs (2012)

Issue: Does a mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time they committed the murder violate the cruel and unusual punishment of the 8th Amendment? (both boys were 14 at the time)

In a 5-4 decision, the Court agreedJustice Thomas dissented writing the Constitution

does not have a “proportionality principle”, the 8th Amendment deals with method, not age and this ruling challenges the state legislatures authority

Questions??