constitutional issues - chapter 10
TRANSCRIPT
Michelle PalaroCJUS 2360Fall 2015
A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law
Chapter 10The Fifth Amendment
Obtaining Information Legally
Introduction This is one of the best known Amendments,
thanks to television and the movies Everyone knows about the “right to remain
silent” However the 5th Amendment covers many
other rights that people are not aware of Even though the world revolves around
communication, and electronic advancements continue to defy the imagination, the criminal justice system still focuses on the oldest form of communication: Talking
The Right Against Self-Incriminationand Due Process
The 5th amendment says:o “No person shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself”
5th amendment also states:o “No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property, without due process of law”
Malloy v. Hogan (1964)o Made the self-incrimination clause
applicable to the states
Malloy v. Hogan (1964)
Hiibel v. Nevada , 59 P.2d 1201 (2004)
Facts: A stopped motorist refused to provide proper identification on request of the police officer investigating an assault involving a similar vehicle
Issues: Does the Fifth Amendment include the right to refuse to provide identification to the police during a routine law enforcement Terry stop?
Holding: No Rationale: The initial stop was based on
reasonable suspicion, satisfying the 4th Amendment requirements, and the Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_5554
Due Process Due process- provides rules and procedures to
ensure fairness to an individual and to prevent arbitrary government actionso The 5th and 14th Amendments constitutionally
guarantee the right of an accused to hear the charges against him or her and to be heard by the court having jurisdiction over the matter
Procedural and substantive due process work to ensure to everyone the fairness of the law under the Constitution
Police actions that are extreme have been found to violate due process
Rochin v. California , 342 U.S. 165 (1952)
Facts: Deputies entered Rochin’s home through an unlocked door and saw him put two capsules into his mouth. The officers took him to the hospital and had his stomach pumped. Two morphine capsules were recovered and used as evidence
Issues: Did the police procedure violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Holding: Yes Rationale: The police violated Rochin's right to due
process of law. Due process was an admittedly vague concept, but it prohibited "conduct that shocks the conscience"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochin_v._California
The 5th Amendment and Confessions
This area of law has been the subject of continued judicial examination
When will a confession be admissible as evidence in court?o Early common law permitted confessions to be
obtained by any manner, including force or threat of force
o The reliability of such admissions is to be questioned
o While the need for interrogations by law enforcement is acknowledged, not all confessions will be admissible in court
Voluntariness of Confessions
The exclusionary rule prohibits use of confessions obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights, and those otherwise coerced are inherently unreliable
To demonstrate that a confession was voluntary, many police departments will tape- or video-record interrogations
Brown v. Mississippi , 297 U.S. 278 (1936)
Facts: Two individuals were convicted of murder, the only evidence of which was their own confessions that were procured after violent interrogation including whippings
Issues: Can a confession be used as evidence if extracted after police violence?
Holding: No Rationale: In the first confession case decided by
the Supreme Court, a defendant’s confession, when extracted through police violence, cannot be entered as violence for the process to acquire such an admission violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Mississippi
Voluntariness of Confessions, cont’d
The Courts have identified two factors in assessing the voluntariness of a confession:1. The police conduct involved2. Conduct sufficient to overcome the will
of the suspect given the characteristics of the accused
Police Conduct What are some conduct that violates due
process?o Threats of violenceo Confinement under shockingly inhumane
conditionso Interrogation after lengthy, unnecessary
delays in obtaining a statement between arrest and presentment before a neutral magistrate
o Continued interrogation of an injured and depressed suspect in a hospital intensive-care unit
o Deprivations of food, drink and sleep
Police Conduct, cont’d What are examples of police action
that do NOT violate due process?o Promises of leniencyo Encouraging a suspect to cooperateo Promises of psychological treatmento Appeal to religious believeso Trickery and deceit
Characteristics of the Accused Factors to be considered in determining
whether a confession was voluntary:o Ageo Educationo Intelligence levelo Mental illnesso Physical condition
If it has not been coerced, then the confession is presumed to have been voluntary
A Standard for Voluntariness There is a totality of circumstances
testo Was the admission truly voluntary?o Were the individual’s constitutional
guarantees protected?o Was the good of the people balanced
with the government’s and the accused's freedoms?
Escobedo v. Illinois , 378 U.S. 478 (1964)
Escobedo v. Illinois , 378 U.S. 478 (1964)
Facts: Escobedo asked for his lawyer. His attorney arrived at police headquarters soon after the petitioner did and was not allowed to speak to his client as the officers said they had not completed questioning
Issues: If a suspect has been taken into police custody and interrogated by police without their request to see an attorney being honored, nor being advised of their right to remain silent, have they been denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment?
Holding: Yes Rationale: When the process shifts from
investigatory to accusatory, the accused must be permitted to consult with his/her lawyer
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) The most well known cases ever decided
concerning law enforcement Most people can recite the requirements
of Miranda The purpose is to let those accused of
crimes known they do have rights and to protect themselves
Many criticize Miranda but it remains the precedent case referred to by courts analyzing confession issues
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Was a poor 23 year old with a 9th grade
education Arrested in his home for rape and was
taken to the police station where a witness identified him
Within 2 hours, he signed a written confession
He was never informed of his right to consult with an attorney, to have an attorney present during questioning, nor of his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) The legal issue in this case is whether the
police must inform a suspect, who is the subject of custodial interrogation, of his constitutional rights concerning self-incrimination and counsel before questioning
Miranda also changed the analysis of the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination from a totality of the circumstances for voluntariness to whether those subjected to a custodial interrogation by police were advised of their rights
The Miranda Warning This decision actually directs police officers on what
to say to individuals that are in custody before questioning them
The Constitution requires that I inform you that:o You have the right to remain silento Anything you say can and will be used against you in courto You have the right to talk to a lawyer now and have him
present now or at any time during questioningo If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you
without cost Some officers have a “soft Miranda warning” which is
less harsho This version is permissible as long as all the elements of the
warning are present
When the Miranda Warning Must be Given
Custodial interrogationo Warnings must be given to a suspect
interrogated in police custody when the suspect is not free to leave
When in doubt, the officer should advise the person of their rightso Any interview of one suspected of a crime by
a police officer will have coercive aspect to it which may cause the suspect to be charged with a crime
o Miranda warnings are required only when there has been such restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him “in custody”
Waiving the Rights Waiver
o A purposeful and voluntary giving up of a known right Suspects must know and understand their
constitutional rights to legally waive them Suspects may revoke the waiver at any point in
the interrogation If after hearing an officer read the Miranda
warnings, suspects remain silent, this silence is not a waiver
To waive their rights, they must state orally or in writing:1. They understand their rights2. They will voluntarily answer questions without a lawyer
present
When Miranda Warnings Generally Are Not Required
An exception is when questioning is done by a private security officero Why?o Not bound by the 4th amendmento Only government agents are• However, they will be held accountable for
wrongful acts, including crimes or civil wrongs
The Public Safety Exception An important exception to the Miranda
requirement involves public safety
Allows police to question suspects without first giving the Miranda warning if the information sought sufficiently affects the officer’s and the public’s safety
New York v. Quarles , 467 U.S. 649 (1984)
Facts: After being stopped and frisked, revealing an empty shoulder holster, respondent Benjamin Quarles said “the gun is over there” in response to an officer’s question about its whereabouts. Only then did the officer give the respondent his Miranda warnings
Issues: Was Miranda violated? Holding: No Rationale: If Miranda warnings had deterred the
response to the officer’s question, the result would have been more than the loss of evidence. As long as the gun was concealed in the store, it was a danger to public safety
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Quarles
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree The doctrine would prohibit the use of
secondary evidence in trial that was called directly from primary evidence derived from any legal search and seizure
Unlike Fourth Amendment violations, in which the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies, violations of Miranda do not restrict the use of evidence gleaned from a statement made in the absence of Miranda
Other Rights Guaranteed by the 5th Amendment
Right to a grand jury indictmento The only unincoporated right under the
5th
Prohibition against double jeopardy
Right to receive just compensation when government takes private property
USA PATRIOT Act The Act significantly improves the nation’s
counterterrorism efforts by:o Allowing investigators to use the tools already
available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking
o Facilitating information sharing and cooperation among government agencies, so they can better “connect the dots”
o Updating the law to reflect new technologies and new threats
o Increasing the penalties for those who commit or support terrorist crimes