Outline: Search and Seizure
I. Basics of the Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution provides, “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.”
II. Arrests and other detentions:
A. ARREST: To take a person suspected of a crime into custody.
1. What’s needed before police can make an arrest? In order to make an arrest, a police officer needs to
establish “probable cause.” For there to be probable cause to arrest a person, it must be more likely than not that:
a. a violation of the law has been committed; and
b. the person to be arrested committed the violation
Probable Cause may be based on the following:
i. Observation by officers: sight, hearing, smell, touch
ii. Officer expertise and circumstantial factors
iii. Information communicated to officers: official sources, crime victims, informants, witnesses
NOTE: Arrests may be executed with a warrant or not, depending on the situation.
2. Necessity of an arrest warrant: An arrest warrant will rarely be required. Only when the police need to enter a
private home to make the arrest, and a couple of other situations, does the Fourth Amendment require the police to
get an arrest warrant before they make an arrest.
Why do you think the law requires an arrest warrant to go into a person's home?
What if the police are chasing a felony suspect and he runs into his own dwelling? Can the police enter and
arrest the suspect if they are in "hot pursuit"?
What if the police arrive to arrest a suspect and they reasonably believe that the suspect will destroy evidence
(such as in a drug case) if they delay their entry until they can get a warrant?
B. STOP AND QUESTION: A “stop and question” occurs when police stop someone and question someone
whom they reasonably suspect to be involved in criminal activity. Here, the police may stop the person temporarily
to ask for identification and for an explanation of the suspicious behavior.
1. What’s needed before police can stop a person and question him/her? Where a police officer observes
unusual conduct that leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity is going on, he may briefly detain the
suspect in order to make inquiries. Probable cause is not required — reasonable suspicion, based on objective
facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity, will be enough.
What if an officer stops someone because he has a “gut feeling that things were really wrong”? Is this
What if a police officer turns a street corner in a neighborhood where there is a lot of drug dealing. When he
turns the corner, a group of teens scatters and runs away. Can he pursue one of these kids who are fleeing, stop
him, and question him?
How about this: what if the police officer stops someone because he is walking in an area having a high
incidence of drug traffic. Can the police officer stop him?
What if the police officer sees a kid walk up to a curb to a car waiting there, gives the passenger in the car a bag
and takes a twenty dollar bill? Can he stop the kid and ask him questions?
What if the defendant "looks suspicious" to the officer? Is that enough?
2. Do I have to talk if the officer questions me? Not really, But, in a few states, the refusal to answer can be used
in determining probable cause. In most states, the right against self-incrimination prohibits silence from being used
to determine probable cause.
III. Searches and Seizure:
A. WHAT IS A SEARCH? When we talk about searches, we are talking about police going through and searching
people’s houses, cars, property, and persons for contraband (goods that are against the law). Generally, courts have
found searches and seizures reasonable when authorized by a valid warrant. In addition, courts have recognized that
certain searches conducted without a warrant can also be reasonable, in certain limited circumstances.
In either case, a person has to have what the Supreme Court called a “reasonable expectation of privacy” before
any search can be held to be no good. Look at the following and ask yourself: are these situations such that a person
would expect privacy?
Defendant puts some papers in a public trash bin, unaware that the police are watching his conduct. Can the
police retrieve the trash and search for the papers?
What if a person says something in public and a police officer overhears the conversation?
There is definitely an expectation of privacy in your home. . .but what about the "curtilage" of a building, i.e.,
the land and buildings associated with a dwelling (garage, for example)?
When dealing with private property, the courts have expanded coverage to include “curtilage”, which is the area
and outbuildings surrounding a house that is considered private property.
A residential yard is curtilage. The only exception is when the owner has permitted public access
to the yard and had no expectation of privacy.
Yard fences define the perimeter of the curtilage.
Garbage on the curb is not curtilage (California v. Greenwood)
With businesses, curtilage applies only to areas not open to the public.
What if the defendant owns a 100 acre farm, with a farmhouse near one edge. Defendant grows pot in the very
center of the 100 acres. The fields are not part of the curtilage. If the officer enters the property and
photographs the marijuana plants, is this an infringement?
NOTE II: THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE: In studying searches and seizures, it is important to understand that
if a court finds a search is unreasonable, the evidence found in the search can’t be used in the trial. This is called the
exclusionary rule. It doesn’t mean that there can’t be a trial or a conviction. It just means that the evidence can’t
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (See Handout)
i. The Good Faith Exception
ii. The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine
iii. The Impendent Source Doctrine
B. SEARCHES WITH A WARRANT:
1. What is needed for police to obtain a search warrant? A search warrant is a court order obtained from a
judge who is convinced that there is a real need to search a person or place. Before a judge issues a warrant,
someone, usually a police officer, must file an affidavit that provides the probable cause to believe that a search is
justified. If a judge issues a search warrant, the warrant must specifically describe the person or place to be searched
and the particular things to be seized.
Probable cause here means that it must be more likely than not that:
a. the specific items to be searched for are connected with criminal activities; and
b. these items will be found in the place to be searched.
2. Execution of warrants: The Fourth Amendment requires that the procedures that the police use in carrying out
a search not be “unreasonable.” Thus, in general, the police may not behave in an improperly intrusive manner.
Do you think police can forcibly break into premises when they have a search warrant?
What if defendant is a narcotics suspect, believed to be carrying a small amount of drugs. He gets away from the
police shortly before they come to arrest him at his house. Can they break into his house without identifying
themselves or ringing the doorbell?
What if the police have reason to believe that a defendant has a gun, and won’t be “taken alive”? Can they break
the door down?
What if they knock first and then are refused entry (or get no response)? Can they break in then?
If the police have a search warrant, can they search everyone in the room that they enter? Who can they search?
What if people try to leave?
What if police, in conducting a legal search pursuant to the warrant for weapons/stolen money from a bank
robbery, come across items not listed in the warrant, such as cocaine on the living room table? Can they be
What about bodily intrusions? What if the warrant calls for the forcible taking of blood from a drunk-driving
suspect? Stomach pumping or x-rays to obtain evidence that defendant is concealing drugs in his stomach? Or
what if police want to place a defendant under general anesthesia to remove a bullet lodged deep in his chest, in
order to show that he was involved in a particular robbery?
C. SEARCHES WITHOUT A WARRANT:
1. Why would police search without a warrant? Although the police are generally required to get a search
warrant before conducting a search, the courts have recognized a number of situations in which searches are
reasonable and may be legally conducted without a warrant. Why? Usually because of the immediacy of the
situations and the potential for lost evidence or even harm to officers.
2. What kinds of situations allow for a warrantless search? (1) Search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) Stop and
Frisk (“Terry Stop”); (3) Consent searches; (4) Plain View; (5) Emergency situations; (6) Vehicle searches;
(7)Inventory; (8) Abandonment; and since 9/11 (9)Border and Airport searches.
a. Search incident to a lawful arrest: In general, when the police are making a lawful arrest, they may search the area
within the arrestee’s control. This is known as a "search incident to arrest." Search-incident-to-arrest is the most
important exception to the general rule that a search warrant is required before a search takes place.
Officer watches a defendant run out of a coin shop at night, while the shop’s alarm is ringing. Assuming that
these facts give Officer probable cause to arrest the defendant (which they almost certainly do), can the officer
conduct a full search of the defendant’s person?
Officers come to arrest the defendant at his house for a recent robbery. They have an arrest warrant but no
search warrant. After arresting the defendant, the police conduct a full scale search of the defendant’s three-
bedroom house. They discover some of the stolen property in one of the bedrooms, not the room in which they
arrested the defendant.
What about an automobile search incident to an arrest? Do you think that police can search the entire car of a
defendant who has been lawfully arrested?
What if the defendant is given a ticked for a traffic violation? Can his car be searched?
b. Stop and frisk (Terry stop): Sometimes the police, when they encounter a suspect, do not want to make a full arrest,
but merely want to briefly detain the person. This happens most typically when the police are not investigating any
particular crime, and are simply performing routine patrolling functions. The two questions which the "stop-and-
frisk" doctrine deals with are: (1) When may the police briefly detain a person even though they do not have
probable cause to arrest him or to search him? and (2) To what extent may the police conduct a protective, limited
search for weapons on the suspect’s person? In general, the stop-and-frisk doctrine lets the police do both of the
above things in appropriate circumstances:
i. Right to stop: (We did this one before. . .just a refresher). Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which
leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity is going on, he may briefly detain the suspect in order to
make inquiries. Probable cause is not required — reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the
individual is involved in criminal activity, will suffice. (The stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, but it
does not require probable cause, merely reasonable suspicion.)
ii. Protective frisk: Once the officer conducts a stop as described above, then assuming nothing in the initial
encounter dispels his reasonable fear for his or others’ safety, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of
the outer clothing of the suspect in an attempt to discover weapons. This limited "frisk" or "pat-down" is a Fourth
Amendment search, but is deemed "reasonable." Consequently, any weapons seized may be introduced against the
Officers observe a defendant who was suspected of burglary and stealing silver coins, attempting to sell coins on
a street corner. He was wearing a long wool coat that seemed out of place for the weather of the day, and he
seemed nervous. One detective observed a bulge in an exterior pocket of the suspect’s coat. Can the officers
stop and frisk the defendant?
Officer temporarily stops D, a patron in a bar, and frisks him. Officer feels, through D’s clothing, what appears
to be a cigarette pack with some objects in it. Officer then removes the pack, and discovers heroin packets
inside it. Valid?
Defendant flees when he sees police officers patrolling the high crime area where he is walking. They therefore
stop him and pat him down. Are the officers justified in stopping and frisking the defendant?
Officer, while in his patrol car, is approached by an informant he knows, who says that defendant, possesses a
gun and narcotics. Officer stops the defendant and performs a frisk of the defendant’s outer clothing, finding a
weapon. Is this search valid?
The police get an anonymous phone tip that a black male wearing a plaid shirt is standing on a particular street
corner and carrying a concealed illegal weapon. The police stop D (who meets that description), pat him down,
and find an illegal weapon on him. Valid?
What if a police officer does a "stop and frisk" on someone who he reasonably believes to have a weapon. He
feels the defendant's clothing and feels a hard rock that, because he has experience with drugs, he believes to be
crack cocaine. He sticks his hand in the pocket and finds cocaine. Valid?
What about cars? When the police make a "stop" of a person in a car, can the police then search for weapons in
c. Consent searches: The police may make a warrantless search if they receive the consent of the individual whose
premises, effects, or person are to be searched.
What would happen if the police ask someone if they can search someone's house, car, etc. and the person
allows it, but she doesn't know she can refuse? Is the search valid?
What if the police ask to search your house, and merely threaten to get a warrant? If a defendant allows a search
then, is it valid?
Officer, wearing plain clothes, comes to D’s house pretending to be the meter reader for the local electric
company. D, believing Officer’s cover story, lets Officer into D’s basement. While purporting to read the meter,
Officer spots incriminating evidence in the basement in plain view. Is this a valid search?
Officer asks a defendant for permission to search the defendant’s living room for certain evidence. Defendant
responds, "O.K." Officer then goes into the kitchen and basement, and finds incriminating evidence. Since
Officer went beyond the scope of the consented-to search, should the evidence that he finds be suppressed?
d. Consent by third persons: Be careful of consent issues raised when the police seek the consent of one person for the
search of the property of another, or for the search of an area as to which another has an expectation of privacy —
the mere fact that the first person has voluntarily consented does not mean that the police may conduct the search
and introduce evidence against the second person. In general, A may not consent to a search that would invade B’s
expectation of privacy — only if special circumstances exist (e.g., both A and B have authority over the premises)
will A’s consent be in effect binding on B.
Defendant and X are roommates, and agree that each may use the living room of their apartment at any time.
The police seek to make a warrantless search of the living room for evidence to be used in a narcotics
investigation of the defendant. While the defendant is not present, they ask X, "May we search your living
room?" X agrees. Will this search be valid?
X is staying at defendant’s house as a brief overnight guest. While defendant is away, X consents to a police
search of the house, while explaining his guest-only status to the police. Will this search be valid?
Defendant rents a bedroom in L’s two-family house. The lease provides that L will not enter that bedroom
without defendant’s consent. While defendant is away, L consents to a police search of the bedroom. Will this
search be valid?
What if a wife consents to allow a search of her husband’s belongings? Valid?
What if a parent consents to a search of his/her child's room? Valid?
What if a landlord consents to a search of a tenant’s apartment? Valid?
What about an employer consenting to a search of an employee’s work area? Valid?
e. Plain View: The "plain view" doctrine is often applied to allow police who are on premises for lawful purposes to
make a warrantless seizure of evidence that they come across.
Officer is walking down the street, and he happens to glance through the picture window of the defendant’s
house. He spots the defendant strangling the victim to death with a stocking. Can the officer give testimony at
the defendant’s trial about what he saw?
Officer trespasses on a defendant's front lawn to look into the defendant's front window, where officer gets the
plain view. Does the doctrine apply? Can the officer seize evidence of a crime that he sees?
What if the officer uses binoculars? Is this still “plain view”? How about a flashlight?
Officer is legally in a defendant's apartment. Officer notices an expensive stereo. He picks the stereo up, reads
the serial number on the bottom, and learns by phone that a unit with that number has recently been stolen.
Can he use this evidence against the defendant?
Officer, standing on the public sidewalk, can see through the window of D’s house and can view marijuana
growing in D’s living room. Can the Officer make a warrantless entry into the defendant’s house to seize the
What about plain smell? What if an officer uses a trained dog at an airport (where he has a right to be) to smell
drugs? Is a search of a defendant’s bag after a dog signals “pot!” valid?
What about plain touch? What if an officer, in doing a valid Terry stop (he has reasonable suspicion that the
defendant may have a weapon), feels a rock-like substance. Because of his experience as an officer, he knows
what rock cocaine feels like, so he puts his hand in the defendant’s pocket and finds cocaine. Is this a valid
f. Vehicle Searches: According to the textbook, a police officer who has probable cause to believe that a vehicle
contains contraband, or illegal items, may conduct a search of the vehicle without a warrant and that it would leave
the scene before a search warrant could be acquired. This doesn’t mean that the police have the right to stop and
search any vehicle on the streets. The right to stop and search must be based on probable cause.
o The principle of mobility applies only if there is a chance that the car will be moved. This includes
o If a driver or passenger is arrested, the interior and all contents of the car can be search only if the
search follows an arrest.
o Pretext stops, which involve stopping a vehicle for reasons other than a specific violation, do not
justify a subsequent search of that vehicle.
o Police can spot check vehicles, such as sobriety checkpoints.
Search & Seizure of the Trunk of a Car and Glove Box
The trunk of a car would be in control of the car's driver, and barring some unusual circumstance, within his
or her reach. A trunk generally conceals its contents. So, an officer may look there if there is a belief that
what he is searching for might be in the trunk. Passengers in an automobile have no reasonable expectation
of privacy in the interior area of the car, a warrantless search of the glove compartment and the spaces
under the seats, which turned up evidence implicating the passengers, invaded no Fourth Amendment
interest of the passengers. Luggage and other closed containers found in automobiles may also be subjected
to warrantless searches based on probable cause. Bottom line, with probable cause, police officers may
search any area in the vehicle.
Note: A person may assert violation of his Fourth Amendment rights in connection with search or seizure only if he
can demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or items seized. To establish, for Fourth
Amendment purposes, a legitimate expectation of privacy in area searched or items seized, defendants must
demonstrate: (1) subjective expectation of privacy; and (2) that this expectation is one that society is prepared to
recognize as objectively reasonable.
Officer pulls over defendant for speeding. When he approaches the window, he notices a small bag of white
powder on the front seat. Can he search the car for drugs?
Officer observed Goodman’s car change lanes without proper signaling. Jones stops Goodman and begins to
write a ticket Has a hunch, decided to search car. Finds drugs. . .OK search?
Officer spots a car known to be owned by a fugitive drug dealer, and reasonably believed to be used by the
dealer in his drug operations. Can the officer stop the car and search it without a warrant?
The police, hearing a description of the getaway car used in a robbery, stop a car meeting that description,
driven by a defendant. They arrest the defendant, and take the defendant and the car to the station-house.
There, they search the car without a warrant, and find incriminating evidence. Is this search valid?
If the police have probable cause to believe that the driver of a car is carrying drugs, can they stop the car and
do a drug search on the car?
Can they search a passenger's purse if they pull this same car above over?
What about passengers themselves. . .can they search them?
What about a Terry stop type of situation? What if police stop someone in a car and have a reasonable suspicion
that the person has a weapon? Can the officers search the car?
g. Emergency circumstances: Even where the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the search warrant requirement does
not apply, there may be emergency circumstances which justify dispensing with the warrant requirement.
The police ask the defendant to come to the police station so they can question him about the strangulation of
his wife, the victim. Defendant does so. The police do not arrest the defendant, but notice blood on his finger.
They ask if they can take a sample of scrapings from the defendant's fingernails. He refuses. The defendant then
puts his hands in his pockets, and seems to be rubbing them against his keys. The police forcibly take scrapings
from his fingernails, which turn out to contain traces of skin and fabric from the defendant. Was this search
Suppose that the police learn that a defendant, whose address they know, is plotting to kill the President one
hour later. Can the police break into the defendant's home and search his premises without getting a warrant?
Police are informed that an armed robbery had taken place and that a suspect wearing a light cap and dark jacket
had entered a certain house less than five minutes before the officers arrived. Several officers entered the house
and began to search for the described suspect and weapons that he had used in the robbery and might use
against them. One officer, while searching the cellar, found in an open washing machine (in plain view. . .)
clothing of the type that the fleeing man was said to have worn. Were these clothes admissible?
A. Introduction: Two requirements for confessions: In both state and federal courts, a confession may be used
against a suspect only if it satisfies each of the following two requirements:
1. Voluntary: The confession must have been voluntary (not the product of coercion by the police); and
2. Miranda warnings: The confession must have been obtained in conformity with the Miranda v. Arizona decision
— in brief, if the confession was given by the suspect while he was in custody and under interrogation by the
authorities, the suspect must have been warned that he had the right to remain silent, that anything he said
could be used against him, and that he had the right to have an attorney present.
NOTE: If either one of these requirements is violated, attorneys may seek to invoke the exclusionary rule or,
on appeal, may try to get the conviction thrown out on appeal.
B. Voluntariness: Regardless of whether Miranda warnings are given to the suspect, his confession will only be
admissible against him if it was given voluntarily.
Victim says to Suspect, "Because you shot me, I will take revenge on you by shooting your sister unless you turn
yourself into the police and confess." Suspect goes to the police and confesses. Is this confession OK?
Suspect is in a psychotic schizophrenic state. He confesses to a crime because the "voice of God" tells him he
should do so. Is his confession OK to use against him?
C. Miranda warnings: The main set of rules governing confessions in both state and federal courts derive from
Miranda v. Arizona. In general, Miranda holds that when a suspect is questioned in custody by the police, his
confession will be admissible against him only if he has received the "Miranda warnings."
1. The Warnings: There are four warnings which are required once Miranda applies at all. The suspect must be
a. He has the right to remain silent;
b. Anything he says can be used against him in a court of law;
c. He has the right to the presence of an attorney; and
d. If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he desires.
2. Three requirements for application: Before Miranda will be found to apply, three requirements must be satisfied: (a)
Custody; (b) Interrogation; (c) Authorities.
a. Custody: First, Miranda warnings are necessary only where the suspect is taken into custody. Whether a
suspect is or is not in "custody" as of a particular moment is to be determined by an objective "reasonable
suspect" test: the issue is whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would believe that he was (or
was not) in custody at that moment.
D, a motorist, is stopped by Officer and required to get out of his car. Officer asks D a question, to which
D gives an incriminating response. Should he have gotten his Miranda warnings before he said anything?
What if the police say to D that he is “under arrest”? Is he in custody? Does he have to be read his Miranda
What if the police go to break up a fight in a bar and they place D in a squad car, but don’t tell him he is
under arrest? Do they have to read him the Miranda warnings before they question him?
What if D is just walking down the street at the scene of a crime and the police approach him and begin to
ask him questions? Should the police read him the Miranda warnings before they question him?
What D runs out of a jewelry store where the alarm is going off. The police run after him and stop him and
begin to question him about the alarm, what he was doing there, etc.? Do they have to read him his Miranda
warning before they question him?
What if D is pulled over for a traffic violation and the police begin to ask him questions about a crime scene
he was just driving from? Do the police have to read this person his Miranda warnings before they question
b. Questioning: Second, the Miranda rule applies only where the confession comes as the result of questioning.
What if the police run after the suspect running out the jewelry store (where the alarm is going off), the
corner him, and he blurts out “I did it! You got me! The jewels are in my pocket!!” They didn’t read him his
Miranda warnings before he confessed. . .is his confession usable?
D is arrested for a murder committed by use of a sawed-off shotgun, which has not been found. While D
is being transported near the crime scene, Officer comments to his colleagues in front of D that there is a
school for handicapped children nearby, and that "God forbid one of the children might find a weapon with
shells and they might hurt themselves." D then directs the officers to the place where the gun can be found.
They didn’t read him his Miranda warnings before he told them this. . .is this information usable?
Officer and three colleagues trap D, a suspected rapist, in a grocery store. When he sees the officers, D runs
towards the back of the store, where he is caught and handcuffed. Officer, without giving D Miranda
warnings, asks him whether he has a gun and where it is. D answers, "Over there." The gun is found, and
D’s statement — plus the gun — are introduced against him at his trial. Can this information be used
against him, even though the Miranda warnings were not read to him?
c Authorities: Finally, Miranda applies only where both the questioning and the custody are by the police or
other law enforcement authorities. It does not apply to private investigators or private individuals.
Parable Cause Chart (We went over this in class)
0% 50% 95% 100%
No Hunch Suspicion Reasonable Probable Preponderance of Beyond Certainty
Information Grounds Cause Evidence Reasonable
Explanation of each entry on the chart.
No Information means the officer doesn't know anything about the location of evidence linked to a crime.
Hunch means the officer has a gut feeling that something is not right, but the officer cannot point to any
specific facts; it is something like intuition.
Suspicion means the officer knows a minor fact or knows some larger fact from an unknown or unreliable
source that suggests evidence may be located somewhere. For instance, an officer stops a person on the
street to ask a question and the person quickly puts a hand in a pocket. Or, the officer may find a piece of
paper on the street, which says that a particular person is selling drugs.
Reasonable Grounds (also called Reasonable Belief and Reasonable Suspicion) means the officer
knows several minor facts or a larger fact, or a large fact from a source of unknown reliability that points to
a particular person engaging in some criminal activity. For example, a teacher standing outside a girls'
lavatory smells cigarette smoke coming from the lavatory. The only two girls in the lavatory then leave
together. The teacher has reasonable grounds, but not probable cause, to believe the girls have cigarettes in
their purses (a violation of a school rule).
Probable Cause means an officer has enough evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that the items
searched for are connected with criminal activity and will be found in the place to be searched. For example,
an increase of 200 to 300 percent in power consumption within a building is not enough alone to establish
probable cause to believe that a drug-growing operation is under way inside. However, such an increase,
with other suspicious facts including an anonymous phone call claiming that people at a certain place are
growing drugs, is enough for probable cause and a search warrant.
Preponderance of the Evidence is the amount of evidence needed to be successful when suing in a civil
case. It means that evidence must be "more likely than not," or more than 50 percent.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the highest amount of proof; it is required to convict a person of a
Certainty means that there is not even an unreasonable doubt as to its truth.
Basic Procedural Rights Guaranteed By the
U.S. Bill Of Rights to Individuals Accused Of Crimes
(Went over these in class)
The United States Bill of Rights guarantees residents of this country certain procedural rights:
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOURSELF.
YOU CANNOT BE TRIED FOR THE SAME CRIME TWICE.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF CHARGES AGAINST YOU.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FACE THOSE WHO ACCUSE YOU.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (A LAWYER) FOR YOUR DEFENSE.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REASONABLE BAIL, FINES, AND PUNISHMENT.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO LOSE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.
(5th and 14th Amendments)