defendant’s rights and the right to privacy american government

Defendant’s Rights and the Right to PrivacyAMERICAN GOVERNMENT

Search and Seizure Prior to an arrest being made, police need to be able to establish probable cause

◦ Probable cause is the belief that there are reasonable grounds to believe that someone is guilty of a crime◦ This often requires physical evidence such as fingerprints or possession of stolen property

The 4th Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures◦ In order to prove that the search is reasonable, police often have to obtain a search warrant◦ Warrants are generally not given unless probably cause can be proven

Exclusion Since 1914, the Supreme Court has used the exclusionary rule to weigh evidence in criminal cases

◦ The exclusionary rule prevents prosecutors from introducing illegally seized evidence in court

Mapp v. Ohio (1960) Until the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the exclusionary rule only applied to Federal cases

◦ In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Mapp could not be charged for possession of illegal pornographic material even it was found when searching Mapp’s home for a bombing suspect◦ It was determined that because the evidence was obtained illegally it was not admissible in court, further extending the concept of

incorporation

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_236



Exceptions There have been modern exceptions to the exclusionary rule that have made the rule more lax

◦ Justices have decided that good-faith exceptions would be allowed in court◦ If evidence was obtained illegally, but the officers believed that they were obtaining evidence legally, it could be valid in court

◦ In the case of Herring v United States (2009), it was established that the police must deliberately obtain evidence illegally for it to not be valid in court

The Patriot Act The Patriot Act was passed 6 months after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. The Patriot Act allows the government to:

◦ Enhance the ability of domestic security services to prevent terrorism◦ Enhance surveillance procedures◦ Create anti-money-laundering programs to prevent terrorism◦ Increase border security◦ Remove obstacles to investigating terrorism◦ Change how aid is given to families of terrorist activities◦ Increase information sharing for critical infrastructure protection◦ Change the definitions of terrorism to include a broader sense of what terrorism is◦ Change how intelligence is gathered and shared

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested on circumstantial evidence of a rape and kidnapping

◦ After a two hour interrogation, Miranda signed a confession admitting to committing rape◦ Miranda had not been told about his right to counsel and his right to remain silent

◦ It was argued that since these liberties had not been afforded to Miranda, any confession provided could not be used in court





The Decision The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, stated that the only way that statements from a suspect that were admissible in court were those the suspect provided after being informed of their right to counsel and silence

◦ This is why your Miranda Rights are read to you if you are arrested

Miranda was later convicted of the crime based upon the testimony of others◦ He was released on parole a few years later◦ He died after a bar fight in which he incurred a lethal stab wound

Self-Incrimination The 5th amendment forbids forced self incrimination

◦ This means that no person can be forced to testify against themselves in a trial

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) The case of Gideon v. Wainwright involved Clarence Gideon, who was too poor to provide his own legal counsel

◦ Gideon had requested a state appointed lawyer, but at the time only capital offenses were afforded a court appointed lawyer

◦ Gideon was found guilty of felony burglary and sentenced to five years in prison




The Decision After the ruling of this case, it was decided that all individuals

accused of a felony, no matter their financial situation, could have a court appointed lawyer defend them in their case

The 6th Amendment ensures the right to counsel extended beyond Federal courts, due to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Furman v. Georgia (1971) Furman was in the middle of a burglary when he was discovered

◦ As he tried to flee, he tripped and fell, and after he fell his gun discharged killing a resident of the home he was burglarizing

◦ He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death

The question in the case was, does the death penalty violate the cruel and unusual punishment standard set by the 8th amendment

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_69_5003/



The Decision In a 5-4 decision, it was found that in this instance the death penalty would be considered cruel and unusual punishment

◦ The court felt that the ruling in this case was based upon racial discriminatory practices◦ State legislators were asked to revisit their death penalty statutes and reform them so they would be

less discriminatory in nature

Gregg v. Georgia (1976) In Gregg v Georgia, Gregg was convicted of armed robbery and murder

◦ After his conviction, Gregg was sentenced to death◦ Gregg challenged the death penalty sentence and argued that the death penalty was a violation of the

cruel and unusual punishment standard set forth by the eight amendment◦ The death penalty is referred to as capital punishment





The Decision In a 7-2 decision, it was determined by the Supreme Court that capitol punishment was not a violation

of the cruel and unusual punishment standard of the 8th Amendment◦ The court stated that the Georgia death penalty statute assures the judicious and careful use of the

death penalty by requiring a bifurcated proceeding ◦ This means that the trail and sentencing are conducted in separate hearings

Roe v. Wade (1971) Roe v. Wade

◦ The case of Roe v. Wade challenged a Texas state ban on all abortions◦ Texas law prohibited abortions except to save a pregnant woman’s life◦ This case also challenges the idea that this a violation of medical privacy

◦ http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18

Right to Privacy The Bill of Rights does not guarantee a citizens express right to privacy

◦ The Bill of Rights was, however, interpreted to provide privacy starting with the case of Griswold v Connecticut

The Decision◦ It was determined that states could not legally ban abortions and that the following abortions were allowed to be legal

◦ No law can forbid an abortion during the first trimester◦ Abortions are legal in the second trimester and can be regulated, but only in a way that protects a mother’s health◦ Abortion is legal in the third trimester if the mother’s life is in danger

defendant’s rights and the right to privacy american government

Documents