Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights

Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Chapter 20

Due Process of Law • Procedural Due Process means the actions the government uses to enforce the laws must be fair • The 5th amendment provides that the Federal Government cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

Case Example: Rochin v California, 1952 • Having "some information" that petitioner was selling narcotics, three state officers entered his home and forced their way into the bedroom occupied by him and his wife. When asked about two capsules lying on a bedside table, petitioner put them in his mouth

. After an unsuccessful struggle to extract them by force, the officers took petitioner to a hospital, where an emetic was forced into his stomach against his will. He vomited two capsules which were found to contain morphine. These were admitted in evidence over his objection, and he was convicted in a state court of violating a state law forbidding possession of morphine

Substantive Due Process means the government’s actions be fair. • The 14th amendment provides that State and local governments cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property

Case Example: Pierce v Society of Sister, 1925 • In November, 1922, the state of Oregon passed the Compulsory Education Act, which required every child from the ages of eight to sixteen to attend 'a public school for the period of time a public school shall be held during the current year' in the district where the child resides; failure so to do was declared a misdemeanor. • Can the State require all children to attend public schools? In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled on June 1, 1925 against the State and in favor of parents in this case. • According to the Court, the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Police Power is the authority of each state to act to safeguard the well-being of its people • To promote health • To promote safety • To promote morals • To promote the general welfare

Right to Privacy • Established with the case of Griswold v Connecticut, 1965 • Facts of the Case: • Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.

Question: • Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

Conclusion: • Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.

Defined with the case of Stanly v GA, 1969 • Facts of the Case: • Law enforcement officers, under the authority of a warrant, searched Stanley's home pursuant to an investigation of his alleged bookmaking activities. During the search, the officers found three reels of eight-millimeter film. The officers viewed the films, concluded they were obscene, and seized them. Stanley was then tried and convicted under a Georgia law prohibiting the possession of obscene materials.

Question: • Did the Georgia statute infringe upon the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

Conclusion: • The Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibited making private possession of obscene materials a crime. In his majority opinion, Justice Marshall noted that the rights to receive information and to personal privacy were fundamental to a free society. Marshall then found that "[i]f the First Amendment means anything

, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds." The Court distinguished between the mere private possession of obscene materials and the production and distribution of such materials. The latter, the Court held, could be regulated by the states.

Provoked controversy with the case of Roe v Wade, 1973 • The alias "Jane Roe" was used for Norma McCorvey, on whose behalf the suit was originally filed, alleging that the abortion law in Texas violated her constitutional rights and the rights of other women.. The defendant was the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, Henry B. Wade.

Roe v. Wade is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy

Freedom & Security of the Person • Slavery & Involuntary Servitude • Slavery ended with the 13th amendment in 1865 which also protects us against forced labor and involuntary servitude • This is the only part of the Constitution that covers the actions of private individuals as well as that of the government • Until the 1960s, citizens and the Supreme Court thought the 13th amendment did not apply to racial discrimination

In 1968, the court upheld the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This meant that racial discrimination was unconstitutional. They applied this to ethnicity too.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms • The 2nd amendment protects the right of each state to form and keep a militia. • A lot of people believe this applies to one’s individual right to own a gun. • The Supreme Court has tried only one important 2nd Amendment case, U.S. v Miller, 1939. The case dealt with shipping sawed-off shotguns, etc. and taxing them if they went across state lines. The Supreme Court upheld the tax. • The 2nd amendment does NOT extend to state governments. Therefore, the states have the right to regulate arms in their own ways

Security of Home and Person • The 3rd and 4th amendments protect the security of home and person • The 4th amendment protects us from writs of assistance (blanket search warrants) • The 4th amendment protections are extended to the states through the 14th amendment. • Aspects of the 4th Amendment • Probable Cause –to search a premise, in most cases, a warrant must be obtained based on a reasonable suspicion of crime.

California v Acevedo, 1991 • Facts of the Case: • California police officers saw Charles Acevedo enter an apartment known to contain several packages of marijuana and leave a short time later carrying a paper bag approximately the same size as one of the packages. When Acevedo put the bag in the truck of his car and began to drive away, the officers stopped the car, searched the bag, and found marijuana. At his trial, Avecedo made a motion to suppress the marijuana as evidence, since the police had not had a search warrant.

Question: • Under the Fourth Amendment, may police conduct a warrantless search of a container within an automobile if they have probable cause to believe that the container holds evidence? • Conclusion: • Yes. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, the Court reversed the Court of Appeal and ruled that the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's general search-warrant requirement is broad enough to cover a situation where the police only have probable cause to believe there is evidence in a specific movable container within the car. The Court noted that the warrant requirement previously had depended on a "curious

line between the search of an automobile that coincidentally turns up a container and the search of a container that coincidentally turns up in an automobile." In place of that uncertain distinction, the Court adopted a single rule: "The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained."

Katz v U.S., 1967 – unless police officers have a warrant, tapping phone calls is not legal • The DOJ says it has used the Patriot-amended pen/trap provisions to track the communications of a host of ne'er-do-wells. [The greatest-hits list it sent the House Judiciary Committee in May includes: "(1) terrorist conspirators, (2) at least one major drug distributor, (3) identity thieves who obtained victims' bank account information and stole the money, (4) a four-time murderer, and (5) a fugitive who fled on the eve of trial using a fake passport." They also say the new authority helped them investigate the murder of Daniel Pearl.]

Illinois v Wardlow, 2000 0 to arrest a person, a police officer needs only probable cause • Mapp v Ohio, 1961 – evidence gained as a result of an illegal search cannot be used in court. • DolreeMapp 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, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence.

Board of Education, Pottowatomie County v Earls, 2002 – Drug testing can be conducted without a warrant or probably cause

Rights of the Accused • Article I, Sections 9 & 10 • Writ of habeas Corpus – a court order which prevents unjust arrests and imprisonments • Bills of Attainder – laws passed by Congress that inflict punishment without a court trial. • Ex Post Facto Laws – new laws cannot apply to things that happened in the past • Applies only to criminal laws, NOT civil laws

Grand Jury • An indictment is the formal device by which a person can be accused of a serious crime • It is required for federal courts under the 6th amendment • The grand jury deliberates on whether the prosecution’s indictment, a formal complaint, presents enough evidence against the accused to justify a trial • Only the prosecution present evidence at a grand jury trial • The right to a grand jury is not covered by the 14th amendment’s Due Process Clause. Most states have legislated to skip the grand jury stage

Speedy and public trial • The right to a speedy and public trial was extended as part of the 14th amendment’s due process clause by the case of Barker v Wingo, 1972 • Petitioner was not brought to trial for murder until more than five years after he had been arrested, during which time the prosecution obtained numerous continuances, initially for the purpose of first trying petitioner's alleged accomplice so that his testimony, if conviction resulted, would be available at petitioner's trial. Before the accomplice was finally convicted, he was tried six times

. Petitioner made no objection to the continuances until three and one-half years after he was arrested. After the accomplice was finally convicted, petitioner, after further delays because of a key prosecution witness' illness, was tried and convicted. In this habeas corpus proceeding, the Court of Appeals, concluding that petitioner had waived his right to a speedy trial for the period prior to his demand for trial, and, in any event, had not been prejudiced by the delay, affirmed the District Court's judgment against petitioner.

Held: A defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial cannot be established by any inflexible rule, but can be determined only on an ad hoc balancing basis in which the conduct of the prosecution and that of the defendant are weighed. The court should assess such factors as the length of and reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. In this case, the lack of any serious prejudice to petitioner and the fact, as disclosed by the record, that he did not want a speedy trial outweigh opposing considerations, and compel the conclusion that petitioner was not deprived of his due process right to a speedy trial

The 6th amendment requires that the beginning of a person’s federal criminal trial must take place no more than 100 days after the arrest • A judge can limit who can watch a trial if the defendant’s rights are in jeopardy

Trial by Jury • Americans in criminal trials are guaranteed an impartial jury chosen from the area where the crime was committed • If the trial is too sensational, the defense can request a change of venue – move the trial to a less controversial location • If a defendant waives the right to a jury trial, a bench trial is held where the judge alone hears the case • Most juries have to be unanimous to convict the criminal

Right to an Adequate Defense • The accused has the following rights • To be informed of the charges and form of the accusation • To be confronted with the witnesses against her/her • To be able to subpoena witnesses to testify on his/her behalf • To have an attorney speak in his/her defense

Self-Incrimination • The 5th amendment declares that no person can be “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This protection extends to the States, and sometimes to civil trials if the testimony could lead to a criminal charge. • A person cannot be forced to confess to a crime under severe circumstances • A husband or wife cannot be forced to testify against their spouse, although they can testify voluntarily.

In the case of Miranda v Arizona, 1966, the Supreme Court set an historic precedent when it would no longer uphold convictions in cases in which the defendant had not been informed of his or her rights before questioning • STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: Miranda (D) was arrested and taken to the police station where officers questioned him for two hours. D signed a confession. The confession stated that it was made voluntarily and that D had full knowledge of his legal rights. D's confession was used against him at trial and over D's objection. D was convicted of rape and kidnapping. The state supreme court affirmed the conviction. D appealed.

LEGAL ISSUE: Must law enforcement officials inform an accused of his constitutional rights? Are statements obtained from an individual subjected to custodial police interrogation admissible if he has not been notified of his privilege under the 5th Amendment not to be compelled to incriminate himself?

HOLDING: Incriminating statements made by an individual are only admissible if the following safeguards have been taken; and/or, when a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom, the following warnings must be given: he has the right to remain silent; that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law; that he has the right to have an attorney present; and if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him.

Punishment • Bail & Preventative Detention • Bail is the sum of money that the accused has to pay the court as a guarantee that he or she will appear in court • The Constitution does NOT guarantee that all accused people are entitled to bail, just that it cannot be excessive • Preventative Detention is a law that allows judges to keep accused felons behind bars if the accused is a danger to society or that he/she might flee.

U.S. v Salerno, 1987, the Supreme Court upheld the concept of preventative detention, stating that it did not necessarily mean the accused was presumed guilty • The 1984 Bail Reform Act allowed the federal courts to detain an arrestee prior to trial if the government could prove that the individual was potentially dangerous to other people in the community. Prosecutors alleged that Salerno and another person in this case were prominent figures in the La Cosa Nostra crime family.

Question: • Did the Bail Reform Act violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause? • Conclusion: • The Court held that the Act was constitutional because when the government's interest in protecting the community outweighs individual liberty, pre-trial detention can be "a potential solution to a pressing societal problem."

Cruel & Unusual Punishment • The 8th amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment • The Supreme Court extended the 8th amendment to the states in the case of Robinson v California, 1962 when they ruled that narcotics addiction was an illness and NOT a crime. • In Estelle v Gamble, 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that a prison inmate could not be denied medical care

Capital Punishment • Capital Punishment is the death penalty • In Furman v GA, 1972, the Supreme Court voided capital punishment stating that it was applied unfairly to only a few convicts, often African-Americans or the poor or both

In Gregg v GA, 1976, the Supreme Court held for the first time that a new law that provided a two-stage trial for the death penalty was constitutional • The first trail was to determine guilt • The second trial was to decide whether the death penalty was warranted • The Court later restricted the use of the death penalty to cases where the victim died

Treason • Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution • Treason is • Levying war against the U.S. or • Giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the U.S. • Treason can only be committed during times of war • Treason is punishable by death. • Other acts like espionage or sabotage can be committed in peacetime

John Brown of Virginia is the only person ever to be executed for treason against a State due to his pre-Civil War raid on Harper’s Ferry.

Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights