The rights of the accused are primarily protected by the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments.
4th Amendment: Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
Guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Text: "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."
Searches
Consent: Government can always ask for consent to search.
Reasonable Suspicion: Police can investigate further but cannot search or seize based solely on reasonable suspicion.
Based on an officer’s experience and the circumstances.
Asks: Does the officer reasonably suspect that a crime is afoot?
Probable Cause: Police can get a warrant or search and seize (depending on the circumstances) with probable cause.
A reasonable belief based on evidence that a crime has been committed or the thing you want to search for is in the place you want to search for it.
Warrantless Searches: Still need probable cause.
Exigent circumstances (pursuit, destruction of evidence).
Plain view.
Katz v. United States (1967)
Issue: Did the police violate the 4th Amendment by listening to a phone conversation inside a phone booth without a warrant?
Rule: The 4th Amendment applies if:
(1) the person has an expectation of privacy (subjective), and
(2) that expectation of privacy is reasonable (objective).
Application: Police attached listening devices to the outside of a phone booth to listen to the phone conversations without a warrant. Katz was using the phone booth to make illegal gambling calls and was convicted based on the content of the phone calls.
Conclusion: Katz had a reasonable expectation of conversation privacy in a phone booth. Listening without a warrant violated the 4th Amendment.
Weeks v. United States (1913)
Issue: Can the government search a home and seize property without a warrant?
Rule: The government may only search a home with a warrant:
Based on sworn evidence.
That describes with “reasonable particularity the thing for which the search was to be made”.
Application: Weeks was arrested for running an illegal lottery. After his arrest, his home was searched without a warrant, and evidence was seized and used against him at trial.
Conclusion: The search and seizure violated Weeks’s 4th Amendment rights.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Issue: What do you do with evidence that was obtained in violation of a suspect’s rights?
Rule: Evidence obtained in violation of a suspect’s rights is NOT admissible at trial. This is known as the Exclusionary Rule.
Application: Mapp’s home was illegally searched to find a fugitive (not Mapp). During the search, police found Mapp’s obscene materials. The obscene materials were used at trial against Mapp, and Mapp was convicted of possessing obscenity.
Conclusion: The search violated the 4th Amendment. The obscene materials could not be used against Mapp, resulting in a new trial where she was found not guilty.
Exceptions to the Mapp Exclusionary Rule
Attenuation of the “taint” (Nardone v. United States, 1939).
Good faith (United States v. Leon, 1984).
Independent source (Segura v. United States, 1984).
Inevitable discovery (Nix v. Williams, 1984).
Whren v. United States (1996)
Issue: What justifies stopping and searching a car?
Rule:
Probable cause that a traffic violation has occurred justifies stopping a car.
Probable cause that the car contains contraband justifies searching the car.
Application: Whren was in a car in a “high drug neighborhood”. He turned without signaling and was pulled over. The cops found Whren literally holding a bag of cocaine in his hands. The cops had probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred (turning without signaling), and the cops had probable cause to believe the car contained contraband (the cocaine).
Conclusion: The stop and the arrest were CONSTITUTIONAL.
New Jersey v. TLO (1985)
Issue: Is a warrant required to conduct a search at a school?
Rule: For a school search to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, it must be:
(1) justified
(2) be reasonable in its scope
Application: TLO was suspected of having cigarettes on campus. Her purse was searched, and the school found some pot and a list of names that owed her money. A warrant was NOT required because the search was justified and reasonable in scope.
Conclusion: TLO was convicted of possessing marijuana.
5th Amendment
Due process
Right to remain silent
Double-jeopardy
Text: "No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…"
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Issue: When can a suspect’s statements during questioning be used against him?
Rule: The government may not use statements from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless the suspect:
(1) is advised of his right to remain silent and right to an attorney
(2) understands his rights
(3) waives those rights
Application: Miranda was questioned at a police station about a rape case. He was not advised of all of his rights. He confessed in writing, and the confession was used at trial. Because Miranda was not advised of his rights, he got a new trial.
Conclusion: At his new trial, he was CONVICTED of rape (again).
6th Amendment
Right to counsel
Speedy and public trial
Jury
Text: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall…have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Issue: Did a FL law that only provided defendants with attorneys if they were charged with capital (death penalty) crimes violate the 6th Amendment right to counsel?
Rule: State and federal courts must provide attorneys to:
(1) all criminal defendants that
(2) cannot afford attorneys on their own
Application: Gideon was charged with breaking-and-entering. He could not afford an attorney and represented himself (and lost).
Conclusion: The FL law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Gideon should have been provided with an attorney.
8th Amendment
Cruel and unusual punishment
Text: "…nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Death Penalty
RULE: The death penalty must be imposed in a way that is fair and gives individual consideration to the defendant and the nature of the crime.
Furman v. Georgia (1972) - the arbitrary and capricious use of the death penalty is unconstitutional.
Gregg v. Georgia (1976) - the careful use of the death penalty in murder cases is constitutional.
Woodson v. North Carolina (1976) - mandatory death sentences for crimes other than murder is unconstitutional.
Coker v. Georgia (1977) - death penalty for the crime of rape of an adult is unconstitutional.
Edmund v. Florida (1982) - death penalty for cases where the defendant did not intend to kill someone is unconstitutional.
Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) - death penalty for rape of a child (if the child survives) is unconstitutional.
To Whom Can the Government Give the Death Penalty?
RULE: What is “cruel and unusual” is determined by “evolving standards of decency”.
Ford v. Wainwright (1986) - death penalty for a person that is insane and does not understand why he is being put to death is unconstitutional.
Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988) - death penalty for minors is unconstitutional.
Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) - death penalty for minors is not unconstitutional.
Penry v. Lynaugh (1989) - death penalty for someone with “mental retardation” is constitutional.
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) - death penalty for someone with “mental retardation” is unconstitutional.
Roper v. Simmons (2002) - death penalty for minors is unconstitutional.
How Can the Government Implement the Death Penalty?
RULE: When determining whether a particular punishment is cruel and unusual, the court asks whether there is a “substantial” or “objectively intolerable” risk of harm.
Wilkerson v. Utah (1879) - death by firing squad is constitutional.
In re Kemmler (1890) - death by electrocution is constitutional.
Glossip v. Gross (2015) - death penalty lethal injection is constitutional.