RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSSED by jolinmilioncherie

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 64

									Rights of the Accused


  Ch. 20
4th Amd.




                           5th Amd.
5th Amd.

                6th Amd.


 5th Amd.                    5th Amd.




 5th Amd.       8th Amd.



6th Amd.
     8th Amd.
Search & Seizure

 4th Amendment




                   Stephanow 2008
4th 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,
  but upon probable cause, supported
  by or affirmation, and particularly
  describing the place to be searched
  and the persons or things to be
  seized.”

     PROTECTS YOU FROM THE GOVERNMENT ONLY!
ARREST


  Take a person into government
  custody.
ARREST WARRANT


  Warrant (court order issued by a
  judge) that authorizes an arrest.
PROBABLE CAUSE


  Reasonable belief that a specific
  person has committed a crime.
Continuum of Certainty
STOP & FRISK


  If an officer has reasonable suspicion to
  believe a person is armed and dangerous,
  s/he may do a limited pat-down of the
  person’s outer clothing to remove any
  weapons the person may be carrying.
SEARCH WARRANT


  Warrant (court order issued by a
  judge) that allows law enforcement
  officers to conduct a search of a
  residence, vehicle, etc.
SCOPE OF THE SEARCH
  Officers can only search in areas that are
  reasonable hiding places for what they are
  looking for.
  Ex. Where could they look for a shot gun?
  --a closet?
  --a bathroom drawer?

  EX. Where could they look for drugs?
Do police ALWAYS need
a warrant?
 No! Here are some
  exceptions:
   Hot pursuit               Jail or prison
   After arrest              Airports
   Consent                   Gov’t Buildings
   Emergencies               Border & open seas
   Plain view (includes      Schools
    open fields and
                              Vehicle searches if
    aerial surveillance)
                               they have probable
   Plain smell                cause.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
  Any evidence seized illegally, cannot be used
  in court. Evidence is EXCLUDED.
GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION
U.S. v. Leon (1984)
  Police thought they had a valid
  warrant; they acted in GOOD FAITH
  when executing the warrant.
  Police cannot be punished for a
  mistake made by another branch of
  government.
  Upheld the good faith exception in
  Maryland v. Garrison in 1987 (wrong
  apartment).
WIRETAPPING
 Katz v. U.S. (1967)
   Even FBI and CIA need a warrant; it’s an
    invasion of privacy.
 FISA Court set up in the early 70’s to allow
  the gov. to get a quick warrant for
  surveillance, or be able to act and then get
  a warrant after the fact.
 What about the US PATRIOT Act?
   Has the Bush Administration been violating the
    FISA Act and the 4th Amendment while
    conducting domestic surveillance?
SCHOOL SEARCHES
 New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
   Schools act in “loco parentis” and have
    an obligation to provide for the health
    and safety of students.
   Therefore, school officials do not have to
    have probable cause or a warrant.
   Schools only need REASONABLE
    SUSPICION.
SCHOOL SEARCHES
  Law enforcement officers in school.
    Cannot search; school officials must.
    Can be brought in if something is found by
     school officials.
    Evidence found can be probable cause for a
     peace officer to make an arrest.
    For a peace officer to search in school,
     generally must need a warrant.
Safford v. Redding (2009)
13-year old female was stripped
 searched by a female AP and female
 nurse for prescription Ibuprofen.
Ordered to strip down to underwear.
Did not find anything.
She sued the school district saying her
 4th Amendment rights had been
 violated.
Safford v. Redding (2009)
   8-1 for Redding
   “Moderate change of finding evidence of
    wrongdoing” if a search was conducted.
   Could search her bag and outer clothing.
   Felt there was not reasonable suspicion of
    danger to students nor a reasonable
    suspicion that Redding was hiding the
    contraband in her underwear.
   Strip search exceeded the reasonable
    scope standard set out in T.L.O.
Vernonia School District
v. Acton



    Argued on March 28, 1995
    Decided on June 26, 1995
Conclusion
 No (6-3). The reasonableness of a
  search is judged by “balancing the
  intrusion on the individual’s Fourth
  Amendment interests against the
  promotion of legitimate
  governmental interests.”
 In the case of high school athletes
  who are under State supervision
  during school hours, they are
  subject to greater control than over
  free adults.
That’s for athletics…
What about for ALL
 competitive extracurriculars?
Potowanomie v. Earls (2002)
  Facts of the Case
   The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy adopted by the
    Tecumseh, Oklahoma School District (School District)
    requires all middle and high school students to consent to
    urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any
    extracurricular activity. Two Tecumseh High School
    students and their parents brought suit, alleging that the
    policy violates the Fourth Amendment. The District Court
    granted the School District summary judgment. In
    reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the policy
    violated the Fourth Amendment. The appellate court
    concluded that before imposing a suspicionless drug-
    testing program a school must demonstrate some
    identifiable drug abuse problem among a sufficient number
    of those tested, such that testing that group will actually
    redress its drug problem, which the School District had
    failed to demonstrate.
Question Presented
Is the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy, which
requires all students who participate in competitive
extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing,
consistent with the Fourth Amendment?


 5-4 decision for the school.
 Random drug testing is not burdensome for the students
 compared to the school’s responsibility of protecting the
 students from drugs.
SCENARIOS
 Jill’s former boyfriend breaks into her
  apartment and looks through her
  desk for love letters. Instead he find
  drugs, which he turns over to the
  police.
 Has there been a violation of Jill’s 4th
  Amd. Rights?
SCENARIOS
 After Jose’ sets his trash out on the
  curb for trash pick-up, the police
  come and go through it—finding plans
  for a murder. They arrest Jose’ based
  on this evidence.
 Has there been a violation of Jose’s
  4th Amd. Rights?
SCENARIOS
 A student informs the AP that Bob
  has a gun in his locker. The APs
  search the locker, find a gun, and
  have a peace officer arrest Bob.
 Has there been a violation of Bob’s 4th
  Amd. Rights?
SCENARIOS
 Larry is observed shoplifting items in
  a store. Police chase Larry into his
  apartment building and arrest him
  outside the closed door of his
  apartment. A search of his
  apartment reveals a large quantity of
  stolen items.
 Has there been a violation of
  Larry’s 4th Amd. Rights?
SCENARIOS
 Sandy and Claire share an apartment
  and both have their name on the
  lease. Sandy is suspected of having
  drugs. The police go to her
  apartment and ask her roommate
  Claire, if they can look through
  Sandy’s bedroom and dresser. Claire
  says okay. They find the drugs.
 Has there been a violation of Sandy’s
  4th Amd. Rights?
Rights of the Accused

  5th Amendment: Pre-Trial
   6th Amendment: At Trial
                5th 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 offence 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.
    #1 Indictment of a Grand Jury
   Grand Jury (5th Amd.)
       16-23 Members
       Role is to determine if there is probable cause to
        believe that a person has committed a crime and
        should be charged.
       Proceedings are secret
       Defendants and their attorney to not have the right to
        appear before the jury.
       Final outcome is to indict (formally charge) the
        defendant.
    #2 subject for the same offence to be
     twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

   Which means…no double jeopardy
        Once you are found NOT GUILTY, you cannot be
         tried for that same crime again.
        If there is a mistrial (i.e. hung jury), the judge can
         order a new trial because a verdict has not been
         reached.


        Federal and state are separate.
        Criminal and civil trials are separate.
    #3 nor shall be compelled in any criminal
      case to be a witness against himself
 Protection against self-incrimination.
 “plead the 5th”
 Cannot force you to testify; burden of proof
  is on the prosecution, not the defense.
    #3 nor shall be compelled in any criminal
      case to be a witness against himself
   Cases:
    Miranda     v. Arizona (1966)
      Must   be read rights upon questioning.
         Berghuis   v. Thompson (2010)
             Suspects    must break their silence and
             tell police they are going to remain quiet
             to stop an interrogation, just as they must
             tell police that they want a lawyer.
    #4 nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
    property, without due process of law

   Due process means… fair treatment.
     5th Amendment for feds.
     14th Amendment for states.
     Procedural (the criminal process)
     Substantive (the substance/content of the
      laws themselves)
#5 (civil) nor shall private property be taken
    for public use, without just compensation.

   Eminent Domain
   The “takings clause”
   Power is given in the main body of the Const.
   Added in the 5th, “without just compensation.”
   Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
       5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from
        economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a
        permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause.
       Basically, if a private entity can show the community will enjoy eco.
        Growth, then the city can take the property and say it’s for public use.
   States are responding by passing their own “takings” laws
    limiting it to true public use (ex. Roads, parks, schools, etc.)
                6th 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
    defence.
       #1 speedy and public trial
   Why a SPEEDY trial?

   Why a PUBLIC trial?

   free press v. fair trial (1st v. 6th)
#2 impartial jury of the State and district wherein
         the crime shall have been committed
   Petit jury:
     6-12 Members
     Role is to decide if the defendant is guilty or
      not guilty in a criminal case.
     Trials are open to the public, but deliberations
      are private.
     Defendants have the right to appear, testify,
      and call witnesses on their behalf.
     Final outcome is a verdict of guilty or not
      guilty.
    What if you don’t show up for jury
                  duty?
   http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=74141
    66

   Story:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/college-
    student-brought-court-chains-skipping-
    jury-duty/story?id=10519695
#3 to be informed of the nature and
      cause of the accusation
 Right to know the actual charges to you
  can prepare an adequate defense.
 Habeas Corpus can apply here.
       What does Habeas Corpus mean?
Should detainees in the “war on terror” be
     granted habeas corpus rights?
       #4 to be confronted with the
          witnesses against him
   Def. has the right to question witnesses
    that will testify against him.
#5 to have compulsory process for
 obtaining witnesses in his favor
   Def. gets to obtain his own witnesses.
       Could be an alibi or a character witness.
        #6 to have the Assistance of
          Counsel for his defence
   Escobedo v. Illinois
       Have a right to an attorney at questioning.
               Powell v. Florida (2010)
                  Police’s Miranda warnings were sufficient in telling
                   the suspect he had “the right to talk to an attorney
                   before answering questions.” Police do not have to
                   explain that they also means having the attorney with
                   you at questioning.
   Gideon v. Wainwright
       Have a right to an attorney, even if you can’t
        afford one—one will be appointed to you.
  8th   Amendment

   No excessive bail or fines
No cruel and unusual punishment
Is this cruel & unusual punishment?
   Prisoners working on a chain gang?
   Prisoners not getting the type of cereal they
    want? Or crunchy v. creamy peanut butter?
   Prisoners not getting adequate health care?
   “3 strikes and you’re out” laws.
       Ewing v. CA (2003)
Is this cruel & unusual punishment?
       Cruel & Unusual Punishment
           for Teen in Georgia
                    GEORGIA SUPREME COURT
                 S07A1606. WILSON v. THE STATE.
                      Decided: October 26, 2007
“We conclude that the habeas court properly ruled that Wilson’s
  sentence of ten years in prison for having consensual oral sex with a
  fifteen-year-old girl when he was only seventeen years old
  constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.”
    Should juveniles be able to get life
             without parole?
   Facts of the Case:
   When Terrence Graham was 16 years old he was convicted of armed
    burglary and attempted armed robbery. He served a 12 month sentence and
    was released. Six months later Mr. Graham was tried and convicted by a
    Florida state court of armed home robbery and sentenced to life in prison
    without parole. On appeal, he argued that the imposition of a life sentence
    without parole on a juvenile, on its face, violated the Eighth Amendment
    and moreover constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and thus violated
    the Eighth Amendment. The District Court of Appeal of Florida disagreed.
    It held that Mr. Graham's sentence neither was a facial violation of the
    Eighth Amendment nor constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
   Question:
   Does the imposition of a life sentence without parole on a juvenile
    convicted of a non-homicidal offense violate the Eighth Amendment's
    prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment?"
    Should juveniles be able to get life
             without parole?
   Conclusion:
   Yes. (6-3 for the juvenile)The Supreme Court
    held that the Eight Amendment's Cruel and
    Unusual Punishments Clause does not permit a
    juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in
    prison without parole for a non-homicidal
    crime
Methods Explained
               Supreme Court Cases
   Furman v. Georgia (1972)
       Death penalty in this case is Unconstitutional.
       It was being used indiscriminately against blacks.
       States must do 2 things:
            Allow defendant to show all evidence of why they
             should not received the DP, in the punishment phase.
            Have an automatic appeal.
            Supreme Court Cases
   Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
       Death penalty in this case IS Constitutional.
        Death Penalty and Juveniles
   Thompson v. Oklahoma (1986)
       Juveniles must be at least 16 years of age at the
        time of the crime, to receive the DP.
   Stanford v. Kentucky (1989)
       Upheld Thompson—16 still the rule.

   Roper v. Simmons (2004)
       A person must now be at least 18 years of age at
        the time of the crime, to receive the DP.
    Those who CANNOT receive the DP

 Juveniles. (Roper v. Simmons)
 Mentally retarded. (Atkins v. VA, 2001)

 Mentally insane.
    Texas dumps the electric chair in
    1977 & moves to lethal injection.
   Lethal injection in Texas consists of:
       Sodium Thiopental (lethal dose—sedates person)
       Pancuronium Bromide (muscle relaxant—
        collapses diaphragm and lungs)
       Potassim Chloride (stops heart beat)
            Usually pronounced dead approx. 7 minutes after LJ
             begins.
            Cost per execution for drugs used: $86.08.
            Cost of one appeal to Texas Ct. of Crim. Appls.:
             $40,000+
   Average time on Death Row in TX: 10.43 years.
   Cost per day in prison per offender: $62.00
Is Lethal Injection, cruel & unusual?
   Supreme Court considered in 2008, whether
    lethal injection (the method) is constitutional.
   Case involves two death row inmates in
    Kentucky.
   Inmates allege lethal injection is cruel and
    unusual punishment.
   Method in question is used in 37 states.
Baze v. Rees (2008)
Can the death penalty be given to a
         child molester?
                Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)
Can the death penalty be given to a
         child molester?
                Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)

								
To top