Criminal Justice provisions in the Bill of Rights

THE LAW: First ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution

SIGNIFICANCE: The rights and liberties spelled out in the U.S. Bill of Rights are an integral part of the Constitution and as such are guaranteed to everyone, including those accused of crimes. In fact, significant portions of several amendments protect the rights of defendants in criminal cases. The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government; however, through the Fourteenth Amendment, all the protections relevant to defendants now apply also to states.

Beset by the ever-present threat of violent crime, frightened citizens wish to feel safe and therefore look with favor on rigid enforcement of criminal laws. At the same time, however, citizens must recognize that the rights and freedoms they enjoy as American citizens extend to those accused of crimes. Most of the basic constitutional protections that criminal defendants enjoy derive from the U.S. Bill of Rights, which in 1791 added the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which had been ratified two years earlier.

In criminal justice, the most important provisions of the Bill of Rights can be found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. Under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, all those provisions now apply equally to both state and federal criminal prosecutions.

The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment offers protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was framed in response to the English practices that permitted government authorities to search anywhere, anytime, and for any reason. The U.S. Constitution requires search warrants describing with particularity the areas to be searched and the things to be seized before searches can be conducted. This protection protects victims from having to relinquish their privacy completely. Moreover, if other incidental evidence is found during the course of lawful searches, it can be included in trials only when the police can show that there was a good-faith effort to conform with the Fourth Amendment.

In case law, the Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment extends to every place or every thing in which an individual may have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In addition to private residents, among the types of places protected are hotel rooms, garages, offices, automobiles, sealed letters, suitcases, and other closed containers. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has also held that the Fourth Amendment protections do not extend to abandoned or discarded property or open fields. Courts have collectively determined that personal privacy is not protected in such public objects as the sound of a person’s voice, the paint on the outside of a car, or bank records.

The Supreme Court has recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement and has regarded probable cause as a precondition of valid searches. Although “probable cause” has never been precisely defined, rulings in court cases have indicated that for searches to be valid, police officers must have good reasons to believe that they will produce evidence of crimes. Under federal law, officers are required to knock and announce their arrival at the places they intend to search in order to reduce the potential for violence and protect the privacy rights of occupants.

Warrantless searches are authorized in circumstances that require immediate action; however, they must nonetheless conform to the reasonableness requirement. Other types of permissible warrantless searches include searches incidental to lawful arrests, searches based on consent, searches undertaken when officers are in hot pursuit of fleeing suspects, searches in situations in which evidence is evanescent and may disappear if too much time lapses before warrants are obtained (e.g., blood under fingernails or dried semen), and emergency searches. Automobile searches are fraught with rules and exceptions.

One of the most controversial forms of police searches, stop and frisk searches are limited searches that occur when police officers confront suspicious persons in efforts to prevent crimes from occurring. Pat-down searches to look for weapons are permissible on the basis of reasonable suspicion. When pat-down searches reveal contraband or other evidence of crimes, the evidence found is admissible at trial. While suspects are being detained during pat-downs, computer searches can be performed to determine if they are wanted for crimes elsewhere.

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment protects suspects’ rights by guaranteeing that accused persons cannot be forced to confess. It stipulates the right against self-incrimination and provides that all persons accused of serious crimes are to have their cases reviewed by grand juries. The Fifth Amendment also prohibits double jeopardy, which means that criminal defendants cannot be tried twice for the same offense. This protection does not preclude separate actions in state and federal courts or civil and criminal actions growing out of the same set of facts. For example, after former football star O. J. Simpson was acquitted on criminal charges of murder, he was convicted on civil charges of wrongful death on the same set of facts. Criminal defendants can, however, be retried in cases that end in mistrials or hung juries.

The so-called Miranda warnings that arresting officers read to criminal suspects have become such a staple in the vocabulary of law enforcement and popular culture that the process has come to be called “mirandizing.” Arresting officers must inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination, remind them of their right to seek legal counsel before answering any questions, and also advise them that any incriminating statements they make can and will be used against them in a court of law.

No one can be tortured or coerced into giving a confession. In order for a confession to be valid, therefore, suspects must be advised of their rights and it must also be determined that they did not waive their rights voluntarily. Moreover, if it is determined that rights have been waived, the waiver must be knowing and intelligent, and the suspects must understand their rights. Several exceptions exist. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 provides that voluntary confessions can be used in federal courts, even when they are given by suspects who are not informed of their rights. There is also a “public safety” exception, holding that Fifth Amendment rights are not violated when police do not mirandize suspects prior to asking them for weapons in an effort to protect officers and other people in the vicinity where arrests take place.

The Sixth Amendment

The Sixth Amendment deals with the nature of criminal trials, which must be speedy and public and be conducted before impartial juries. Accused persons must also be informed of the crimes for which they are being tried, be able to confront witnesses brought against them, and have the assistance of counsel. The guarantee of the right to speedy and public trials relieves defendants of anxiety about the long-term consequences of their incarceration while they await trial, and it also satisfies society’s interest in the prompt disposition of justice.

The public nature of trials is guaranteed as a result of distrust of secret government activities that British colonists experienced before the Revolutionary War. It also enhances community participation in law enforcement. Public trials permit citizens to receive notice of actions taken against them, and the public nature of trials extends to every stage, including jury selection, communication among judges and juries, and the judges’ jury instructions.

Sometimes trials take place as closed proceedings. This happens when judges determine that the subject matter of trials is sensitive, as in rape cases; when witnesses are too shy and introverted to testify publicly; and when it is necessary to protect the identities of undercover agents. In such situations, the courts have the power to exclude members of the public from attending. A controversial question exists as to whether members of the media should be allowed to attend the proceedings.

The Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses helps ensure that witnesses testify truthfully. Witnesses must swear oaths, they are subject to cross-examination, and judges and juries can assess their credibility by observing their demeanor as they testify. The confrontation right includes right of defendants be present during the course of the trial.

It should be noted that criminal defendants, unlike civil defendants, have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify in their own behalf if they do not wish to do so. Moreover, if they choose not to testify, the prosecution may not comment on that decision. In trials, defendants often waive that privilege when they wish to explain their own versions of the facts. Additionally, the prosecution must prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction. Throughout the legal system, moreover, notions of fundamental fairness exist in the form of due process of law. In both the civil and criminal systems, defendants must receive notices of the proceedings against them as well as opportunities to come forward and be heard before impartial, detached, and neutral tribunals.

The Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of excessive bail for those indicted of crimes and also forbids cruel and unusual punishment of convicted defendants. Cruel and unusual punishment is any punishment that is considered grossly disproportionate to the offenses for which defendants are convicted. These provisions were included in the Bill of Rights because its framers were aware of the history of torture that characterized criminal punishment in pre-Revolutionary times.

Following convictions and guilty pleas, judges decide punishments based on broad legislative sentencing guidelines. Parties sentenced may challenge the constitutionality of their sentences as “cruel and unusual punishment” or a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to alleged disparity in sentencing. While defendants may appeal verdicts when they are convicted, the prosecution cannot appeal verdicts when they lose cases. The Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause specifically prohibits appealing acquittals.

Incorporation Doctrine

Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 established a legal basis for extending Bill of Rights protections to the states in a process known as the incorporation doctrine. However, actual incorporation of the protections did not come until much later. During the twentieth century, the selective incorporation process applied most of the essential provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

Bibliography

Amar, Akhil Reed. The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1997. Constitutional scholar’s examination of basic constitutional criminal guarantees through a close analysis of text, history, structure, and precedent. Amar addresses readers with legal backgrounds but also targets an audience of policymakers and citizens seeking to understand this area of law.

Barker, Lucius J., et al. Civil Liberties and the Constitution. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1999. College textbook containing edited cases and clear explanations of central principles. The commentaries alone provide thorough overviews of the subject.

Campbell, Andrea. Rights of the Accused. Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 2001. Overview of the constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights through detailed discussion of landmark Supreme Court cases and their histories, as well as fundamental principles. Well written and easily understood.

"Constitutional Rights in Criminal Law Proceedings." Justia, 15 Oct. 2023, www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/other-constitutional-rights/. Accessed 21 June 2024.

Samaha, Joel. Criminal Procedure. 6th ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 2004. College textbook integrating edited cases and principles with clear explanations.

Schmalleger, Frank. Criminal Justice, A Brief Introduction. 2d ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1997. College textbook containing concise coverage of major components of the criminal justice system.

Stephens, Otis H., Jr., and John M. Scheb II. American Civil Liberties. Belmont, Calif.: West/Wadsworth, 1999. College textbook containing edited cases and thorough explanations illustrating important principles.