American Constitutional Law LAW-210 Criminal Justice and the Constitution

Unit Objectives At the completion of this unit, students should be able to: List the amendments in the Bill of Rights that provide constitutional protection in criminal cases. Explain the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine to the constitutional rights of those accused of crimes. Define the exclusionary rule. Discuss the arguments for and against the exclusionary rule. Summarize the types of protections foundin the Fourth Amendment.

Unit Objectives (Continued) Summarize the types of protections found in the Fifth Amendment. Discuss the importance of the Miranda decision. Summarize the protections found in the Sixth Amendment. Summarize the protections found in the Eighth Amendment. List the constitutional rights that apply to juvenile proceedings and those rights that do not apply.

Constitutional Protection in Criminal Cases The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments provide constitutional protection in criminal cases. These Amendments regulate police procedures, such as searches, arrests and interrogations, as well as criminal trials and sentencing.

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine The Bill of Rights, which contains most of the enumerated rights of those accused of crimes, applies only to the federal government. It is through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause that the Supreme Court applies these rights to state action. This is known as the Incorporation Doctrine and makes the Bill of Rights applicable in state criminal cases.

Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Casenotes Issue: Search and seizure, exclusion of evidence. Held that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissable in a criminal trial in state court.

The Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule, a rule created by the Supreme Court, provides that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution is not admissible at trial unless it comes within one of the stated exceptions: Good Faith exception – where warrant appears to be valid at time of execution. Impeachment exception – to impeach defendant testifying on his or her own behalf. Standing – where defendant has no personal interest in the property searched. Independent Source and Inevitable Discovery. Attenuation – where link between evidence and illegal act is remote.

The Exclusionary Rule (Continued) Arguments for and against the Exclusionary Rule The main argument for the rule is that it is necessary to protect the constitutional rights of individuals and to deter illegal police activity. The argument against the rule is that it often results in guilty people going free.

The Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment governs police searches and seizures of property or persons (including arrests and detentions). The basic protections of the Fourth Amendment are: All searches must be reasonable. All seizures must be reasonable. If there is a warrant, it must be based on probable cause, signed by a neutral magistrate, and must specifically describe the place or person to be searched or the person or items to be seized.

Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Casenotes Issue: Wiretapping, expectation of privacy. Held that: Government eavesdropping activities violated the privacy upon which the defendant justifiably relied while using a telephone booth and thus constituted a “search and seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Electronic surveillance must be conducted pursuant to a warrant procedure that is a constitutional precondition of such methods.

Reasonableness and Probable Cause Whether a search or seizure is reasonable depends on: The justification for the search or seizure, The manner in which it is carried out, and Whether or not a warrant is needed. Limited searches and seizures (detentions and pat-downs) may be based on rational suspicion (i.e., a reasonable belief that a person is involved in criminal activity – more than a hunch, but less than probable cause).

Reasonableness and Probable Cause (Continued) More extensive searches and seizures require probable cause. Two requirements of probable cause are: Law enforcement officers present sufficient facts (generally by affidavit) to convince a judge to issue a search warrant or an arrest warrant, and No warrant should be issued unless it is more likely than not that the objects sought will be found in the place to be searched or that a crime has been committed by the person to be arrested.

Reasonableness and Probable Cause (Continued) Court-created exceptions to the requirement of a warrant are: When the individual to be searched consents Exigent circumstances (i.e., a sudden event that requires immediate action; an urgent state of affairs) Automobile searches (as long as there is probable cause to believe the automobile contains contraband) Airport and border searches Search of open fields Search of abandoned property

Whren v. United States 517 U.S. 806 (1996) Casenotes Issue: Automobile searches, probable cause. Held that the temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective.

Recent Search and Seizure Cases Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) Use of thermal detecting devices to investigate excessive heat produced in a home is a search and requires a warrant. Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001) Drug testing of new mothers by a state hospital to detect criminal activity, which was reported to law enforcement, was unreasonable. Board of Educ. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) Drug testing required by schools for students wishing to participate in extracurricular activities is reasonable.

The Fifth Amendment The Fifth Amendment provides for the right not to be forced to testify against one’s self, the right not to be subject to double jeopardy, the right to grand jury hearing, and a general right of due process.

Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Casenotes Issue: Self-incrimination. Held that in any custodial interrogation, police must advise suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel. A Miranda warning includes the fact that what the individual says may be held against him, and that he has the right to remain silent, to contact a lawyer, and to have a free court-appointed lawyer. If this warning is not given properly, no statements made by the defendant during custody may be used by the police or by the prosecutor in court.

Dickerson v. United States 530 U.S. 428 (2000) Casenotes Issue: Self-incrimination. Held that: Miranda and its progeny in the Supreme Court govern the admissibility of statements, whether or not voluntary, made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts. These precedents established a constitutional rule that Congress cannot supersede legislatively.

The Sixth Amendment The Sixth Amendment provides several rights dealing with a fair trial. Included are: Right to counsel. Right to a speedy and public trial. Right to an impartial jury in the district where the crime was committed. Right to confront witnesses. Right to compulsory process (i.e., subpoena) to obtain witnesses.

Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963) Casenotes Issue: Right to counsel of indigent defendants. Held that the right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and the defendant’s trial and conviction without the assistance of counsel violates the Fourteenth Amendment. An indigent person is one who is poor - an indigent criminal defendant is entitled to a free court-appointed lawyer.

Wiggins v. Smith 539 U.S. 510 (2003) Casenotes Issue: Right to competent counsel. Held that the defendant’s attorney’s failure to introduce mitigating evidence at sentencing in a capital murder case violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.

Brewer v. Williams 430 U.S. 387 (1977) Casenotes Issue: Proceedings in which right to counsel applies. Held that an individual against whom adversary proceedings have commenced has a right to legal representation when the government interrogates him. The Supreme Court has affirmed the right to counsel in the following types of proceedings: Custodial interrogations Line-ups Pretrial proceedings Sentencing hearings Appeals

The Eighth Amendment The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment does not create a right to bail, but states that it cannot be excessive. One of the most difficult questions in interpreting this amendment is whether the punishment must fit the crime. Proportionality is the term given to the concept that the punishment for a crime must bear some relationship to the nature or the seriousness of the crime.

Ewing v. California 538 U.S. 11 (2003) Casenotes Issue: Proportionality of punishment to the crime. Held that the sentencing of an individual to a minimum term of 25 years for the theft of property valued at $1,200 under a state “three strikes law” was not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment and served the state’s legitimate goal of deterring and incapacitating repeat offenders. The Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment requires that punishment for a crime cannot be grossly disproportionate to the crime but it need not be strictly in proportion to the offense charged.

Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972) Casenotes Issue: The death penalty. Held that the imposition and carrying out by a state of the death penalty in cases involving the crimes of murder and rape does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Two features of death penalty statutes that are designed to ensure that the penalty is fairly applied are: Bifurcated trials consisting of guilt and punishment stages. Automatic appeals to the highest state court.

The Juvenile Justice System With the exception of the right to bail and the right to a jury trial, the rights afforded adult offenders under the Constitution also apply to juveniles accused of crimes.