CIVIL LIBERTIES Protecting Individual Liberty Limits on Individual

CIVIL LIBERTIES: Protecting Individual Liberty

Limits on Individual Rights • Can states limit the sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco, make laws to combat pollution, and require vaccination of school children? – Yes! • Can states forbid concealed weapons, require the use of seat belts, and punish drunk drivers? – Yes

Limits on Individual Rights • Can states outlaw gambling, the sale of obscene materials, and the practice of prostitution? – Yes • Can states enact compulsory education laws, provide medical help to the needy, and limit profits to public utilities? – Yes

Limits on Individual Rights • May police use unnecessary force? – No • May the state operate a private school? – No • May the mayor ban a demonstration because he disagrees with the protesters? – No

5 th Amendment 14 th Amendment DUE PROCESS of law means The government must follow proper procedures in trials and in other actions it takes against individuals.

Due Process of Law! • The 5 th Amendment – Federal government can’t take away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law! • The 14 th Amendment – extends the same due process protection to individuals from state governments!

The Bill of Rights • The Bill of Rights protections apply to Federal Law only! • The Bill of Rights, however is extended to cover states under the due process clause of the 14 th Amendment!

Selective Incorporation • Process by which the Supreme Court has applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14 th Amendment

The 4 th Amendment : Searches and Seizures • Protected against unreasonable searches and seizures • The police have no general right to search for evidence or to seize either evidence or persons unless they have a proper warrant obtained with “probable cause”!

No Warrant Needed When: • If you give consent • If police see you break the law • Evidence is in plain view • Emergency situations • If there is potential that evidence can be moved or destroyed, no warrant is needed.

Schmerber v. California (1966) • Schmerber was forced to take a blood test to determine if he was DWI • The blood test was given by a doctor on police orders but without a search warrant • Legal or Illegal? Legal üthe officer had reasonable suspicion üa doctor performed the test, and had time been taken to obtain a search warrant, the alcohol would have left Schmerber’s system!

Automobiles & other vehicles • A movable crime scene can be searched without a warrant but an officer must have… – “Probable Cause”! Hi-Life • Roadside check points that randomly check for intoxication are… – Legal!

What about a trunk in the trunk? • What about the glove compartment, the trunk, a paper bag, a piece of luggage or other closed container? • If the car is lawfully stopped any search is legal under… “Probable Cause”

The Exclusionary Rule • Evidence illegally obtained by police cannot be used against you • Weeks v. US 1914 – Exclusionary rule applies in Federal Cases • Mapp v. Ohio 1961 – Exclusionary rule applies to STATES From the courts to the police, as you enforce the law obey the law!!!!

Mandatory Drug Testing • May employers require a drug test after an accident at work? • May random drug tests be required in some jobs? • May a drug test be required as a part of an application process for a job? YES!

4 th Amendment & Schools • New Jersey v. TLO (1985) – Student was suspected of smoking in the bathroom and school administrator searched her purse without warrant – Drugs found in the purse • Court ruled… – School acted with reasonable suspicion and, therefore, did not need a warrant

School officials do not have the same restrictions as police officers

5 th Amendment Protects: • Right to a grand jury • No “double jeopardy” • Self-incrimination • Due process of law • Private property

5 th Amendment: Double Jeopardy • Once tried for a crime a person can not be tried for the same crime again! • A crime may violate state and federal laws and a person can then be tried in both state and federal court without violation of their protection from double jeopardy! Double jeopardy does not prevent a person convicted of a crime from appealing a

5 th Amendment: Self-incrimination • You may not be forced to testify against yourself • A refusal to answer on the grounds of selfincrimination works in courtrooms but not assistant principal’s offices! You can be compelled to testify (RAT ON) against a friend!

Limits on Self-incrimination • You can be finger printed, photographed, tested for drugs or alcohol. • You can be put in a lineup. • You can be questioned but a forced confession or one gained by threat is illegal!

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) • Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape and kidnapping. The victim selected him from a lineup, and the police questioned him for 2 hours. • He was NOT told that he could remain silent or that he could have a lawyer. • He confessed, signed a statement, and was convicted. Then he appealed.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) • Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self -incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment? • YES!

Miranda Rights • Before a suspect may be questioned that suspect must be read their rights • Miranda applies only to felonies, not minor offenses such as misdemeanors!

Reading the Rights to the Accused: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. You have the right to remain silent. If you choose to speak, anything you say may be used against you in a court of law or other proceeding. You have the right to consult with a lawyer before answering any questions and you may have a lawyer present during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer and you want one, a lawyer will be provided for you by the state without cost to you. Do you understand what I have told you? You may also waive the right to counsel and your right to remain silent and you may answer any question or make any statement you wish. If you decide to answer questions you may stop at any time to consult with a lawyer.

• You have the right to remain silent. • Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. • You have the right to speak to an attorney. • If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. • Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

6 th Amendment: • Speedy Trial Rights • Public Trial • Impartial Jury • Adequate defense --Lawyer

6 th Amendment: Trial Rights • Speedy Trial – No more than 100 days from arrest to trial • Public Trial – Limits may be set on spectators, people may be removed, courtrooms may be cleared – TV may be allowed or barred, a defendant’s rights come first! • Trial by an impartial Jury – A defendant may waive this right and accept a bench trial

th 6 The Amendment: Right to an Adequate Defense 1. To be informed of the crime to which you have been charged 2. To confront witnesses against you 3. To have witnesses to testify for you 4. To have an attorney’s assistance Both State and Federal Courts must honor these rights!

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) • Gideon accused of robbery in Florida was too poor to hire a lawyer and was forced to defend himself. • Gideon was convicted but appealed his State conviction to the Supreme Court which ruled… If you can not afford an attorney, one will be provided for you!

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) • Danny Escobedo while being taken to the police station for questioning and while being questioned repeatedly asked to see his lawyer and was denied the request! The Supreme Court took • Under intense questioning this case on appeal and in a murder case that went ruled… on for hours, Escobedo Danny Escobedo’s rights had made damaging statements been violated and he was that were used to convict in ordered released from jail!! his trial!

th 8 Amendment Protects you FROM: • Cruel and Unusual punishment • Excessive bail or fines

8 th Amendment: No Excessive Fines or Bail • A sum of money the accused is required to post as a guarantee that they will show up for trial. • Justification for Bail – The accused should not be jailed until convicted – Defendants are better able to prepare their defense out of jail

The 8 th Amendment bans Cruel and Unusual Punishments

What kinds of punishment are banned? • • • Burning at the stake Crucifixion Drawing and Quartering Whippings Slavery

If at first you don’t succeed, try again! Louisiana v. Resweber (1947) • Louisiana was allowed a second attempt at executing Resweber after the chair failed on their first try • The chair worked just fine on their second attempt • It’s not cruel and unusual to try until you succeed Florida’s “Old Sparky” 39 Criminals 0

Three Strike Rules • Three felony convictions = Life Imprisonment! Rummel v. Estelle (1980) • Was it legal to sentence Rummel to life in prison for three petty thefts of property worth $230 in total? YES!

Capital Punishment • The death penalty may be cruel but it is not unusual • 32 states allow capital punishment • To be legal a capital case must have two phases: – Trial and Conviction – Sentencing

8 th Amendment: Punishment W

Capital Punishment • Furman v. Georgia (1972) – Court declares Georgia’s death penalty law is unconstitutional because there is not set procedure in place for applying the death penalty – Used more often for poor and minorities

Capital Punishment Gregg v. Georgia (1976) – Court declared the new Georgia death penalty law constitutional because there is now a procedure for juries to follow when assigning the death sentence

Capital Punishment • If a criminal is insane, they can not be executed! Ford v. Wainwright (1986) • The court may order the insane criminal treated and cured then can order an execution!!

Capital Punishment • If a criminal is 15 years old at the time they commit a murder, they can not be executed • The court did order the execution of 16 and 17 year olds who had committed murder • Thompson v. Oklahoma, Wilkins v. Missouri, and Stanford v. Kentucky

Capital and Other Punishments • Can the jury in a capital case hear from the victim’s family? • Do the feelings of the victims family matter? YES! • May the victim’s family’s wishes be considered in sentencing a criminal?