Transcript 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 for
 Probable cause more than bare suspicion,
common sense standard
 Searching for illegal items or evidence
 Seizure of contraband
 Arrest or detainment
○ The 4th is tied to the 5th because it provides for
your due process rights and prohibits selfincrimination
Probable Cause


Warrant requirements
 Gray areas of probable cause
When does the 4th
Amendment apply?
 Neutral magistrate
 Search by
 Specificity very important
government or
government agent
 Can search areas in
which evidence may
be found
 Areas where an
expectation of privacy
is shown
 Execution of warrant
○ Phone booth-yes
○ School locker-no
○ House-yes
○ Trash-no
 Supporting evidence
 Informants
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 doctrine
 Evidence 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
th
4
Amendment cases

Good Faith rule
 US v Leon (1985)
 Arizona v Evans (1995)

Pat downs
 Terry v Ohio (1968)

Plain view
 Harris v. US (1968)

Consent search
 Georgia v. Randolph (2006)

Student searches
 New 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 use

 North East Mall
 New Dallas Cowboy stadium
 Highways
 Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
5th Amendment

Self-incrimination
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.
 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
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 Giles
 Dissent: “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 trials
 Juries 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 agreed
 Justice 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??