The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments Leah Kuck Sarah Trader Karter Battarbee Staten Peterson Hunter Oglesby

What Do These Amendments Mean? The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments are used to protect the rights of those accused of a crime. 4th- Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. This also means no warrants shall be issued unless there is a probable cause.

What Do These Amendments Mean? 5th- Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. This also means private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation, you don't have to testify against yourself in court, and you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. 6th- Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases. This includes the right to a speedy public trial, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, the right to know who your accusers are, and the charges and evidence against you.

Facts- Clarence Gideon was charged in Florida state court for breaking and entering. When Clarence showed up in court without a lawyer he requested that the court appoint one for him. According to state laws in Florida at the time, an attorney may only be appointed to a penniless defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a petition saying that this was “unlawful” in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that this violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Issue- The 6th Amendment guarantees an attorney to you, but the problem is that Gideon was not granted an attorney when he asked for one.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Holding- The 6th Amendment's guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state court by way of the 14th Amendment. Gideon was not released/ did not get shorter sentence even after his argument of not having proper representation. Reasoning- The Court held that the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a right that is essential to a fair trial and, applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Miranda V. Arizona (1966) Facts - Ernesto Miranda was arrested from his home for kidnapping and rape. He was interrogated for two hours by two officers and gave a written confession. In court, his confession was presented as evidence (w/o his knowledge). Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years to prison on each account. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the earlier holding. In later review, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Arizona Supreme Court’s judgment.

Miranda V. Arizona Issue - The fifth amendment states that “no person shall be in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Is the advisement of rights necessary? Issue -

Miranda V. Arizona The Arizona Supreme Court held the earlier decision. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the earlier holding of the Arizona State Court. Holding - Miranda didn’t request his rights or counsel; such interpretations could hurt the credibility of the confession. The fifth amendment is made to protect citizens against self -incrimination. Reasoning -

Coolidge vs. New Hampshire Facts: Murder of 14 year old girl. Police applied for a warrant to search Coolidge’s car. Attorney General, acting as justice of the peace, authorized it. Police took items from his car and home. Coolidge was found guilty.

Coolidge vs. New Hampshire Issues: Court held that the search and seizures were unconstitutional. Warrant was invalid because it was not issued by a “neutral and detached magistrate.” Court also held that neither the “incident to arrest” doctrine nor the “plain view” doctrine justified the search. Incident to arrest: Principle that lets police do a warrantless search of an arrested person. Plain View: Lets officers take evidence that is in plain view during a lawful search.

Palko v. Connecticut (1935) Name of Case: Palko v. Connecticut Facts: In 1935, Frank Palko broke into a local music store and stole a phonograph, proceeded to flee on foot, and, when cornered by law enforcement, shot and killed two police officers. Palko had been charged with first-degree murder but was instead convicted of the lesser offense of second- degree murder and was given a sentence of life imprisonment. Prosecutors appealed per Connecticut law and won a new trial in which Palko was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Palko appealed, citing it unconstitutional due to double Jeopardy.

Palko v. Connecticut cont. Issue: Does Palko’s second conviction violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy? Holding: No, Protection against double jeopardy is not a fundamental right and thus falls outside constitutional protection. Reasoning: Rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and thought are fundamental, and the 14th amendments due process clause absorbed these fundamental rights and applied them to the states. Protection against Double Jeopardy is not a fundamental right.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Name of case: Mapp v. Ohio Facts: 3 Cleveland police officers arrived at Dollree Mapp’s home under suspicion housing a bombing suspect. Mapp denied them entry and told them to bring a search warrant. The cops arrived 3 hours later and entered the home with a “search warrant”. During the search the cops found possession of obscene material and arrested her based on that. Issue: Were Mapp’s rights violated by the police officers?

Mapp v. Ohio Holding: The evidence obtained is in violation of the 4th amendment which prohibits “unreasonable search and seizure” Reasoning: The court voted 6-3 in favor of Mapp. The justices agreed that the evidence obtained that led to her arrest is inadmissible in state courts.