The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments (Rights of the Accused)

1. The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments (Rights of the Accused) Aino Leskinen, Daion Hale, Kaylie Lawhorn, Bari Derkowski, Sam Poulis, Derrek Gibson, and Quaid Johnson

2. Amendments 4th- “right against unreasonable search and seizure” 5th- “right against being held for commiting a crime unless you’ve been indicted correctly by the police” 6th- “right to a speedy and fair trial”

3. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) “Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures” Dollree Mapp was an employee in the illegal gambling rackets. On May 23, 1957, police officers in Cleveland, Ohio, received an anonymous tip that people that they needed to question about a bombing would be in Mapps house, along with illegal betting slips and equipment. Cops asked for permission to enter the house and Mapp refused so they went and got a warrant.

4. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) “Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures” They got back with the warrant and Mapp wouldn’t open the door so they busted the door down. Mapp v. Ohio was a landmark case in criminal procedure. Dollree Mapp 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.

5. Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? In an opinion authored by Justice Tom C. Clark, the majority brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court.

6. Reasoning If an object is in violation it doesn’t count in court because they didn’t follow the precautions that they had to do based on the Amendments.

7. The difference between substantive and procedural due process is... PROCEDURAL: The Government must employ fair procedures and methods. SUBSTANTIVE: The Government must create fair policies and laws.

8. The Exclusionary Rule *The exclusionary rule is evidence gained as the result of an illegal act by police cannot be used against the person from whom it was seized. * The only way that the evidence can be used against the person in court is if they had a search warrant.

9. Terry v. Ohio (1968) • “Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail.”

10. Terry v. Ohio (1968) Continued • “In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation.” • This violated the Fourth Amendment

11. United States v.s. Jones Jones was arrested on October 24th 2005 for drug possession. Police had attached a tracking device to his jeep without judicial consent and followed him for over a month. The jury had Jones got guilty because the police had violated his fourth amendment rights.

12. United States v.s Jones Did the warrantless use of a tracking device on Jones's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violate Jones' Fourth Amendment rights? * Yes, using a tracking device without a warrant is a violation of Jones’ fourth amendment rights.

13. Reasoning/Holding In the opinion of the court, any evidence the police got from the tracker is invalid because they did not have a valid warrant. If they would have gotten a warrant, it could have been used against Jones when he went on trail.

14. Pottawatomie County v.Earls 2002 -Drug testing of students Board of Education of independent school district Pottawatomie County v. Earls in which the US Supreme Court ruled on June 27,2002. Case was about drug testing of students participating in competitive activities did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees protection from unreasonable searches. Tecumseh High School in Oklahoma started to do drug tests for all students who joins to any extracurricular school activity. Two students Lindsay Earls and Daniel James and their parents sued that it is violating of the fourth amendment. They took the case to US Supreme Court and lost.

15. Continued The two students and their parents who took the case to US Supreme Court said that there is not reasonable suspicion and they aren’t joining an athletic team where the drug using could interfere. In a majority opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that students in extracurricular activities had a diminished expectation of privacy, and that the policy furthered an important interest of the school in preventing drug use among students.

16. How did the Court rule, and what was its reasoning? The Court agreed with the school and ruled that the random drug tests were constitutional. Though the Fourth Amendment requires “probable cause,” the Court has long held that school officials need only “reasonable suspicion” in order to conduct a search. 2002 school was struggling with drugs so they agreed with school that there might be drugs in other activities than just in sports.

17. 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.

18. Miranda Vs. Arizona A kidnapping and sexual assault occurred in Phoenix Arizona on March in 1963. In 1966, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested in his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was interrogated by two police officers for two hours. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation.

19. Continued... Miranda, who had not finished ninth grade and had a history of mental instability, had no counsel present. The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial. This happened because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self incrimination. The duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself ".

20. Continued... The Sixth Amendment, guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The court disagreed, however, and upheld the conviction. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1966.

21. The reason why the Supreme Court overturn Miranda’s Conviction The Court overturned Miranda’s conviction because the police had not informed him of his rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendment: the right not to incriminate himself, as well as the right to have legal counsel assist him. I agree the cost to society freeing criminals is too great. Some may say that the Constitution says nothing about police reminding citizens of their rights. Others may disagree, saying that the Miranda Warnings simply force police to act properly and to protect citizens’ rights.

22. Palko Vs. Connecticut *Frank Palko was charged with first degree murder. He was convicted of second degree murder and received life in the state prison. *The State of Connecticut then appealed the decision and the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. Upon the second trial, Palko was convicted of first degree murder, and was sentenced to death by the electric chair.

23. The Court Question *Palko went to trial twice for the same offense, does this violate the Fifth Amendment prohibition of double jeopardy, and Fourteenth Amendment due process clause? *No, this does not violate fundamental rights of liberty and justice. The double jeopardy prohibition included in the Fifth Amendment is not applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

24. Reasoning *Protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right, like the freedom of thoughts and speech. The Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee against state action all that would be a violation of the original bill of rights. The second trial for Palko was to correct the errors made and correct the charges that he received.

25. Gideon v.s. Wainwright(1963) 6th amendment: The Bill of Rights states citizens are guaranteed a speedy trial,fair trial, an attorney if the person wants one. Background/leading up to trial: Clarence Earl Gideon grew up with strict parents and ran away from home. Has had experience time in jail.

26. The case/facts: Gideon was charged with a felony for breaking and entering as well as a misdemeanor for the intent to steal. Then was never given an attorney at court when requested because he couldn’t afford one. Court claim: The court claimed that they did not have to offer him a an attorney because it was a state charge, not a federal. Effecting Fact: Against the bill of rights and criminal rights of a trial. The 14th amendment created that all types of cases must allow the option for an appointed representative. Cover writ of habeas

27. Issue/question: Does the 6th amendment’s rights protect a fair trial to poor tried criminals when only presented an attorney during court cases? Court decision: Sentence to 5 years in prison. Gideon response: To file for Habeas Corpus Holding:This court was unlawful and unconstitutional even with the scenario of state of federal government trial standards.

28. Reasoning: I believe that the court was unlawfully unfair because they did not give him an equal shot to express himself in they best way. The court manipulated the system with only suggesting that federal cases call for giving an attorney. This created the case to move its way to the supreme court showing the cases lack of structure. Which played a part in creating the 14th amendment.

29. Writ of Habeas Corpus : Defendants who consider challenging the legal bias of their imprisonment. *To apply for unlawful acts during the case for another prompt to case. “No bill of attainder or facto law will be passed” (Article 1, Section 9). Bill of Attainder:Way to punish or even sentence someone to death for crime without trial.

30. Facto law:A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed increase penalties for that infraction. * This protecting the convicted to have a set case and have no further acurazations. Juror selection: Standard,6 & required for misdemeanor +, 12. A selection to create a suitable non bias “peanut gallery” making an informed decision. *Most times are tested before the trial or moved to others for the best fit.

31. Work cited "Terry v. Ohio." Oyez, 30 Nov. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/236 https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html