Rights of the Accused
and the Imprisoned
Unit 6: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, Lesson 4
What is the appropriate balance between protecting due
process for the accused and giving authorities the
powers they need to control crime?
Rights of the Accused and Imprisoned
Protection from
Unreasonable Search and Seizure
• 4th Amendment
– “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and persons or
things to be seized.”
– Police must have warrant to search for and take
evidence
– To obtain a warrant, police must show probable
cause (evidence of serious lawbreaking they can
expect to find)
• Wolf v. Colorado (1949)
– The Court applied (incorporated) protections against
unreasonable search and seizure to the states under
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rights of the Accused and Imprisoned
Protection from
Unreasonable Search and Seizure
• Mapp v. Ohio (1965)
– The Warren Court announced the exclusionary rule, barring the police
and prosecutors from introducing evidence obtained through
warrantless and unreasonable searches, no matter how incriminating,
into trial in state courts.
– Majority hoped threat of perpetrators being freed would force the police
to abide by Constitutional rules
• Terry v. Ohio (1968)
– The Court ruled that to protect public safety police may stop a suspect
on the street and search him without probable cause to arrest if police
have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is
committing, or is about to commit a crime.
• New Jersey v. TLO (1985)
– The Rehnquist Court ruled that school officials do not need a warrant to
search the belongings of students if they have a "reasonable suspicion.”
• Burger and Rehnquist courts have upheld exclusionary
rule but allowed exceptions, shifting power back towards
the police and prosecutors
Of course, claims that searches
and seizures were unreasonable
don’t always work…
Rights of the Accused and Imprisoned
Right to Remain Silent
• 5th Amendment
– “… nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself…”
– Protection from self-incrimination (when an
individual accused of a crime is compelled to be
a witness against himself or herself in court)
Chappelle:
“I plead the Fif”
• Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
– Warren Court ruled that police must inform
criminal suspects of their constitutional rights
upon arrest before questioning them.
– Protects defendants from coerced confessions
and entrapments.
• Burger and Rehnquist Courts have upheld
Miranda ruling but allowed exceptions
Rights of the Accused and Imprisoned
Right to a Lawyer
• 6th Amendment
– “… to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
– Florida sentenced Gideon, a poor electrician, to five
years for burglarizing a pool hall. Unable to afford
lawyer
Video: Gideo v.
Wainwright in court
– Overturning Betts v. Brady (1942), Court ruled that in
felony cases, state courts must provide attorneys at
government expense for defendants who are unable to
afford their own attorneys.
– ___________________ 6th Amendment’s right to legal
counsel to the states based on _____ __________
clause of ______ Amendment.
• Sixth Amendment also guarantees a “speedy and
public” trial.
Rights of the Accused and Imprisoned
Protection from
Cruel & Unusual Punishment
• 8th Amendment
– “… nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted”
• Furman v. Georgia (1973)
– Burger Court ruled capital punishment cruel and unusual
because many states used arbitrary procedures to
impose it. Unconstitutional.
– Besides the 8th, which clause and amendment were the
states violating?
• Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
– After states changed their sentencing procedures,
Burger Court ruled that the death penalty was not
inherently cruel and unusual so long as procedures were
non-arbitrary and nondiscriminatory.
– The death penalty’s use and application varies by state.
Debate
• For or Against the death penalty.
– The Death Penalty is unconstitutional
because our government is practicing…
• Quick Write is based on the lecture,
examples, and debate is the death
penalty constitutional?
Rights of the Accused and Imprisoned
Recent Controversies about
Cruel & Unusual Punishment
• With political leaders and public opinion
supporting death penalty, Rehnquist Court at
first eased ability of states to use death
penalty. Later, they limited its use.
• Concerns about quality of legal defense for
those accused of murder, fairness of system
towards racial minorities, and desire to see
wider use of DNA evidence has grown. This
has reduced support for death penalty’s use.
Texas – capital punishment
capital
• From 1977 – 2009, Texas
accounted for 1/3 of total
executions in U.S.
• From 1999 – 2004, more juvenile
offenders were killed in Texas
than in the rest of the world
combined
• In 2009 about ½ of all executions
in nation were in Texas.
U.S. torture of accused
terrorists and war prisoners
Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq War
• April 2004 – CBS
broadcasts photos of
American soldiers
engaging in
humiliating and
abusive treatment of
Iraqis held at the
Abu Ghraib prison.
• American and world
opinion shocked by
the soldiers’
behavior.
Civil Liberties Summary
• The Bill of Rights protects basic civil liberties. These are individual’s
protections from excessive government power, including freedom of
religion, expression, assembly, and due process for the accused.
• Democracy cannot exist without the protection of civil liberties.
• The legislatures and the courts constantly define what the Bill of
Rights protects in practice.
• In deciding the balance between between freedom and order, the
Courts traditionally came down on the side of order, particularly
when governments claimed suppression was necessary to protect
national security. Beginning in the 1920s, the Court began to
incorporate the Bill of Rights, overturned precedent, and expanded
protections for civil liberties.
• The balance between liberals and conservatives in the Courts
largely determines the extent of protection for civil liberties.