Rights of the Accused and the

Imprisoned Unit 6: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, Lesson 4

What is the appropriate balance between protecting due process for the accused and

giving authorities the powers they need to control crime?

Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure

• 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 oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized.”

– Police must have warrant to search for and take evidence

– To obtain a warrant, police must show probable cause (evidence of serious lawbreaking they can expect to find)

• Wolf v. Colorado (1949)– The Court applied (incorporated) protections against

unreasonable search and seizure to the states under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rights of the Accused and Imprisoned

Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure

• Mapp v. Ohio (1965)– The Warren Court announced the exclusionary rule, barring the police

and prosecutors from introducing evidence obtained through warrantless and unreasonable searches, no matter how incriminating, into trial in state courts.

– Majority hoped threat of perpetrators being freed would force the police to abide by Constitutional rules

• Terry v. Ohio (1968)– The Court ruled that to protect public safety police may stop a suspect

on the street and search him without probable cause to arrest if police have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

• New Jersey v. TLO (1985) – The Rehnquist Court ruled that school officials do not need a warrant to

search the belongings of students if they have a "reasonable suspicion.”

• Burger and Rehnquist courts have upheld exclusionary rule but allowed exceptions, shifting power back towards the police and prosecutors

Rights of the Accused and Imprisoned

Of course, claims that searches and seizures were unreasonable don’t always work…

Right to Remain Silent• 5th Amendment

– “… nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”

– Protection from self-incrimination (when an individual accused of a crime is compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in court)

• Miranda v. Arizona (1966)– Warren Court ruled that police must inform

criminal suspects of their constitutional rights upon arrest before questioning them.

– Protects defendants from coerced confessions and entrapments.

• Burger and Rehnquist Courts have upheld Miranda ruling but allowed exceptions

Rights of the Accused and Imprisoned

Chappelle: “I plead the

Fif”

Right to a Lawyer• 6th Amendment

– “… to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)– Florida sentenced Gideon, a poor electrician, to five

years for burglarizing a pool hall. Unable to afford lawyer

– Overturning Betts v. Brady (1942), Court ruled that in felony cases, state courts must provide attorneys at government expense for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys.

– ___________________ 6th Amendment’s right to legal counsel to the states based on _____ __________ clause of ______ Amendment.

• Sixth Amendment also guarantees a “speedy and public” trial.

Rights of the Accused and Imprisoned

Video: Gideo v. Wainwright in court

Protection fromCruel & Unusual Punishment

Rights of the Accused and Imprisoned

• 8th Amendment– “… nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted”

• Furman v. Georgia (1973)– Burger Court ruled capital punishment cruel and

unusual because many states used arbitrary procedures to impose it. Unconstitutional.

– Besides the 8th, which clause and amendment were the states violating?

• Gregg v. Georgia (1976)– After states changed their sentencing procedures,

Burger Court ruled that the death penalty was not inherently cruel and unusual so long as procedures were non-arbitrary and nondiscriminatory.

– The death penalty’s use and application varies by state.

Debate

• For or Against the death penalty.– The Death Penalty is unconstitutional

because our government is practicing…

• Quick Write is based on the lecture, examples, and debate is the death penalty constitutional?

Recent Controversies aboutCruel & Unusual Punishment

Rights of the Accused and Imprisoned

Texas – capital punishment capital

• From 1977 – 2009, Texas accounted for 1/3 of total executions in U.S.

• From 1999 – 2004, more juvenile offenders were killed in Texas than in the rest of the world combined

• In 2009 about ½ of all executions in nation were in Texas.

U.S. torture of accused terrorists and war prisoners

• With political leaders and public opinion supporting death penalty, Rehnquist Court at first eased ability of states to use death penalty. Later, they limited its use.

• Concerns about quality of legal defense for those accused of murder, fairness of system towards racial minorities, and desire to see wider use of DNA evidence has grown. This has reduced support for death penalty’s use.

Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq War

• April 2004 – CBS broadcasts photos of American soldiers engaging in humiliating and abusive treatment of Iraqis held at the Abu Ghraib prison.

• American and world opinion shocked by the soldiers’ behavior.

Civil Liberties Summary• The Bill of Rights protects basic civil liberties. These are

individual’s protections from excessive government power, including freedom of religion, expression, assembly, and due process for the accused.

• Democracy cannot exist without the protection of civil liberties.

• The legislatures and the courts constantly define what the Bill of Rights protects in practice.

• In deciding the balance between between freedom and order, the Courts traditionally came down on the side of order, particularly when governments claimed suppression was necessary to protect national security. Beginning in the 1920s, the Court began to incorporate the Bill of Rights, overturned precedent, and expanded protections for civil liberties.

• The balance between liberals and conservatives in the Courts largely determines the extent of protection for civil liberties.