Chapter Five section 4. Civil Liberties: Due Process And Procedural Rights

Transcription

1 Chapter Five section 4 Civil Liberties: Due Process And Procedural Rights

2 Where does Due Process come from? 5 2

3 The 5 th Amendment (1791) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; 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.

4 What is Due Process? 5 4

5 Due Process Fairness in both the law and the application of the law. 5 5

6 Two Types of Due Process Substantive Due Process Procedural Due Process

7 Substantive Due Process Fairness of the Law Laws cannot violate your fundamental constitutional rights: Free Speech Freedom of the Press Freedom of Religion Right to Marry Right to Travel Right to Privacy

8 Substantive Due Process Fairness of the Law Laws cannot violate your fundamental constitutional rights: without a compelling government interest

9 Procedural Due Process Fairness of the Administration of the Law Requirement for a Warrant No double jeopardy No self-incrimination A public and speedy trial A trial by impartial jury Notice of accusations Right to confront witnesses Right to compel testimony Right to assistance of counsel

10 Procedural Due Process Fairness of the Administration of the Law Minimum standards: Notice Opportunity to be Heard

11 The Fourth Amendment 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, without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Copyright Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 5 11

12 Selective Incorporation Fourth Amendment Unreasonable search and seizure Wolf v. Colorado, 1949 Warrant requirements Ker v. California, 1963 Right to Privacy Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 Implied right derived from 3 rd and 4 th Amendments Copyright Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 5 12

13 Inclusionary Search and Seizure Most legal systems currently use an inclusionary search and seizure rule: all evidence is presented at trial, and police are punished later for evidence which was obtained improperly Exclusionary Exclude improperly gathered evidence from the trial even if it is relevant to determining guilt or innocence of the accused. Copyright Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 5 13

14 Weeks v US, 1914 Facts of the Case Police entered the home of Fremont Weeks without a search warrant seized papers used to convict him of running a gambling operation across state lines. Question Did this search and seizure violate the Fourth Amendment? Copyright Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 5 14

15 Weeks v US, 1914 Facts of the Case Police entered the home of Fremont Weeks without a search warrant seized papers used to convict him of running a gambling operation across state lines. Question Did this search and seizure violate the Fourth Amendment? Conclusion In a unanimous decision, the Court held... the seizure of items from Weeks' home violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. This established the "exclusionary rule." 5 15

16 Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 Facts of the Case Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. Question Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? Conclusion The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in any court under the Fourth Amendment." Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. This decision explicitly incorporated the exclusion requirement. Copyright Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 5 16

17 US v. Leon, 1984 Facts of the Case Leon was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous informant's tip. The police applied to a judge for a search warrant of Leon's home based on the evidence from their surveillance. A judge issued the warrant and the police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. Leon was indicted for violating federal drug laws. A judge concluded that there was no probable cause for the search warrant and thus the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at Leon's trial. Question Is there a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule? Conclusion Yes, there is such an exception. The justices held that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakes made in good faith by police officers could be introduced at trial. The exclusionary rule, argued the majority, is not a right but a remedy justified by its ability to deter illegal police conduct. In Leon, the costs of the exclusionary rule outweighed the benefits. The exclusionary rule is costly to society: Guilty defendants go unpunished and people lose respect for the law. The benefits of the exclusionary rule are uncertain: The rule cannot deter police in a case like Leon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge. Copyright Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 5 17

18 Search and Seizure Explicit Permission Search warrant a properly obtained order from a judge authorizing the search of a place based on probable cause and describing what is to be searched and seized Bigger than a Breadbox Rule Incident to a lawful arrest (warrant, probable cause, in the presence) Search limited to: The individual being arrested Things in plain view Things or places under the immediate control of the individual Copyright Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 5 18

19 The Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; 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. Copyright Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 5 19

20 Selective Incorporation Fifth Amendment Indictment by Grand Jury Has not been incorporated where there are reasonable alternatives Hurtado v. California, 1884 Double Jeopardy Benton v. Maryland (1969), 1937 Self-incrimination Malloy v. Hogan, 1963 Taking of private property Burlington Railway Co. v Chicago, 1897 Copyright Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 5 20

21 The Sixth Amendment 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. Copyright Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 5 21

22 Selective Incorporation Sixth Amendment Speedy trial Klopfer v. North Carolina, 1967 Public trial In re Oliver, 1948 Trial by impartial jury Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968 Unanimous jury verdict Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979): implicit guarantee of unanimous juries in criminal cases Notice of accusation Rabe v. Washington, 1972 Confrontation of adverse witnesses Pointer v. Texas, 1965 Compulsory process to obtain witness testimony Washington v. Texas, 1967 Assistance of counsel Gideon v. Wainwright, 1964 Miranda warning Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 Copyright Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 5 22

23 Gideon v Wainwright, 1964 Facts of the Case Gideon was charged breaking and entering in Florida. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused. Gideon defended himself in the trial, was convicted by a jury, and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison. Question Did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? Conclusion In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries." Copyright Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 5 23

24 Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 Facts of the Case In 1963, Ernest Arthur Miranda was arrested for rape. He later confessed to robbery and attempted rape under interrogation by police. At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as evidence. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently. Question Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment? Conclusion The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." Confessions are presumed to be involuntary unless the suspect is fully informed of his or her rights. The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations. Copyright Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 5 24

25 FACTS Smith v. Doe, 2003 Under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Megan s Law), all convicted sex offenders must register with the State. The offender's name, photograph, and description is published on the Internet. John Doe was convicted of child sex offenses and released after completion of his sentence. He filed suit claiming violation of his substantive right of privacy and his procedural due process rights for having no opportunity to respond. QUESTION Does Megan s Law violate due process as required by the US Constitution?

26 FINDING No. Smith v. Doe, 2003 As a convicted felon, he had lost any implied right to privacy. Megan s law simply related factual information without any implication of current danger. Although loss of the implied right to privacy is serious, there was no risk of error here, and a substantial cost involved in individual hearings for every offender.

27 Selective Incorporation Seventh Amendment Jury trial in civil cases Has not been incorporated where there are reasonable alternatives Curtis v Loether, 1974

28 Selective Incorporation Eighth Amendment Excessive bail Robinson v. California,1962. Excessive fines Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 2001 Cruel and unusual punishment Roper v. Simmons, 2005 The death penalty was suspended from 1972 (Furman v. Georgia) until 1976 (Gregg v. Georgia)