R ights of the Accused

1. 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Amendments Rights of the Accused

2. 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 self-incrimination

3. Probable Cause • When does the 4th Amendment apply? • Search by government or government agent • Can search areas in which evidence may be found • Areas where an expectation of privacy is shown • Phone booth-yes • School locker-no • House-yes • Trash-no • Warrant requirements • Gray areas of probable cause • Neutral magistrate • Supporting evidence • Informants • Specificity very important • Execution of warrant

4. 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)

5. 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

6. More 4th 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) • Knock and announce • Hudson v. Michigan (2006) • Student searches • New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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.”

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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. 5th Amendment • Self-incrimination • 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

13. 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

14. 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.”

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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?

18. 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

20. 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

21. Questions??