Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment Rights - Essay Example

Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights Review of the Cases Katz v United (1967) Katz was arrestedand arraigned in court after being suspected that he was transmitting gambling information using a telephone booth to customers in other states, which prompted FBI officers to attach an eavesdropping gadget outside the booth to collect evidence to arraign him in court. He was sentenced on eight accounts of transmitting wagering information from the state of Los Angeles to Miami and Boston. However, he appealed in the Appeal Court claiming that the recordings from the FBI could not be used as evidence to sentence him. The court rejected his appeal and granted him certiorari citing there was no physical intrusion into the telephone booth. The issue the case was whether the Fourth Amendment of U.S. constitution grants protection to individuals against unreasonable searches & seizures thus requiring police obtaining a search warrant to allow them to wiretap a public phone booth (Katz v. United States, 1967). Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Summary of the Case The Miranda v Arizona (1966) is a landmark case that represents the aspect of the criminal procedures and the due processes. The defendant in the case, Miranda was arrested by police at his home and taken to a police station where the accuser identified him before later being interrogated by police for a whole two hour period resulting to him signing a written confession. Further, during his trial the written and oral confessions were provided to the jury and as result the court found the defendant guilty of rape and kidnapping hence sentenced him to a 20-30 years period imprisonment on each case account. However, Miranda appealed in the court of supreme of Arizona but the court ruled that the defendant’s constitutional rights were not infringed upon in securing his confessions (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). Brief Fact Summary The defendant provided incriminating evidence when police were interrogating him without notifying him of his constitutional rights provided under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. constitution. Facts The court of supreme of the United States merged four different cases with admissibility issues concerning the evidence obtained during police questionings. In the first, which involved Mr. Miranda, the defendant had been interrogated by police for two hours for charges of kidnapping and rape and although he was a migrant, the police officers failed notifying him of his rights hence resulting to him signing written confession. Moreover, the signed confessions contained a clause that, stated that the accused was aware of his rights during the interrogation as provided in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. constitution. Issues The main issues in the Miranda v. Arizona (1966) case included: Whether the defendant’s admissibility statements were made while he/she was either in custody of the police or whether the defendant was deprived off his freedom of movement in some way, What procedures according to the Fifth Amendment Constitution of the U.S. Constitution were required to guarantee the defendant in this case, Miranda the privilege of avoiding self-incrimination? Therefore, in summary the issue was, whether police officers are mandated notifying the accused person in their custody of his/her rights as provided for by the Fifth Amendment Constitution of the U.S. Constitution. Ruling The court of supreme of the United States from this case created the ‘bright rule’ governing interrogation of accused persons in the custody of the police. The court held that during interrogations police must give the accused person the famous/Miranda warnings as they are called nowadays: You have the right remaining silent, Anything you say will & can be used you in a court of law, You have the a right to an attorney and, If you cant afford an attorney, its your right to have an attorney appointed for you (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). Application Moreover, the Supreme Court also articulated that the process of questioning is threatening and, therefore, the defendant must be informed of his rights to help him/her overcome the fear of interrogation. Further the court explained the manner in which the defendant must be informed of his/her rights, saying this must happen prior to the interrogation and the police can do while arresting someone as long as they do not question him/her. Conclusion The court of supreme ruled that based on the confession and testimony given by Miranda the, the accused was definitely not notified of his right to an attorney to avoid making the self-incriminations. Therefore, because of this, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court and the sentence. Therefore, based on these facts, if the police fails to notify the accused person of his/her rights, any evidence procured cannot be acceptable in court. Importance of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments These amendments are imperative in today’s society because they provide the basis upon which the constitutional rights of individuals are premised. Therefore, these amendments aim to protect individuals or are concerned with the rights of individuals. For example, the Fourth Amendment safeguards individuals from unreasonable searches & seizures from the national government; the Fifth Amendments protects individual from self-incrimination, double jeopardy, gives defendants right to a grand jury, due process while the Sixth Amendment provides for speedy trial for an accused person’s charges before a non-partisan jury. However, of the three amendments, the Fifth Amendment offers the greatest protection for defendants standing trial in any U.S. court. The amendment provides, for instance, for the Miranda warnings, the right to attorney and right to be appointed attorney in the event the defendant is not in a position to hire one. Moreover the amendment either protects individuals from being retried before any court for a similar crime which he/she has been acquitted of or it also provides an individual with the right to have Grand jury when he/she is being tried. Moreover, the amendment also provides an individual the right to due process in any court of competent jurisdiction. The Fifth Amendment Rights Overly, the Fifth Amendment encompasses the rights that are meant protecting individuals from the government when it tries overreaching its authority. Therefore, the amendment in essence tries to protect individual from e.g. making self-incriminatory statements when they are being interrogated by police officers. In the case of Miranda v Arizona (1966) the law enforcement officers violated Miranda’s right to be informed of his rights as provided by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; encompassing, (1) right to be represented by an attorney and (2) right to be notified that his statements will be used in a court of law (self-incrimination). Therefore, from the case police infringed on Miranda’s rights by interrogating him in absence of his attorney, which led to him making incriminatory statements that were used against him in the court resulting to him being sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment. The Fourth Amendment The purpose of this amendment was to deny the Federal government the authority making general seizures and searches on people’s property without reasonable course. However, the amendment provides that in good course the government can search and seize property if the search and seizure is reasonable and is accompanied by a valid warranty, which supported by oath & affirmation that describes the particular places to be search & the things or persons to be seized. Therefore, from the aforementioned, it is evident that the amendment protects mainly two fundamental liberty rights which include (1) the right to freedom, that is free from arbitrary invasion e.g. police entering an individual’s house placing to arrest him/her or search for crime evidence (2) the right to privacy e.g. police entering into an individual’s house without probable cause. Therefore, this amendment in essence protects us from: Personal invasion e.g. police are stopping you for interrogation as you are walking down the street. Property invasion e.g. police entering your house without a valid warranty looking for crime evidence and, Seizing your things e.g. police impounding your car without no reason. Katz v. United States (1967) case: Prong Tests The issue in the case Katz v. United States case was whether warrantless wiretapping of a general public phone booth by police officers violated and amounted to unreasonable search and seizure, which is constitutionally safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. constitution. In ruling the case, the court of supreme decided that the warrantless wiretapping violated the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, to strengthen the ruling of the court, Justice Marshall provided two prong tests concurring with the court’s ruling that determines the actual nature of a reasonable expectation of privacy: (1) A person must exhibit an actual expectation to privacy-thus, for a person claiming violation of the Fourth Amendment right he/she must demonstrate a subjective expectation to privacy. (2) The expectation must be recognized as reasonable by the society implying that the expectation should not be one that the society considers to be unreasonable. Therefore, it is evident that from the two prong test if a person demonstrates that he seeks preserving some public place as private for his or her use as long as its reasonable for the society, the person has a constitution right protected by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. constitution under the searches & seizure clause. Therefore, given the facts of the prong tests as articulated by the court and Marshall, it is undeniable that the freedom to privacy must be accorded whenever a person demonstrates that he/she needs such privacy as long as the actions he intends using the privacy for does not threaten the general well-being of the society. Thus, the question whether the tests are valid or not should depend on the perception of society to such privacy and the actions stemming from the privacy. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment articulates that a search warrant should be issued upon ‘probable cause’ and the particular place to be searched must also be stated. Therefore, it is valid and justifiable that, the right to privacy even in public places should be constitutionally protected as long as an individual is acting within the realms of society and shows the intention for the need to privacy. Analysis of P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act 2001 The holding in the case of Katz v United States case was that an individual can have the right to privacy in a public place if he/she demonstrates or exhibits an expectation to privacy as long as the expectation is reasonable to the society. Moreover, although the ruling in the case of Berger v. New York (1967), which addressed the questions concerning the Fourth Amendment was not ruled to the petitioner’s advantage, it helped set the precedence concerning the Fourth Amendment and wiretapping that was escalating at the with the introduction of new technologies, hence, overruling the 1928 precedent established in Olmstead v. United States case, which excluded a wiretap from the Fourth Amendment. However, considering the facts from the prong tests in the case of Katz v United States & the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act 2001, I believe that the act does not negate the holding in Katz v United States. One of the fundamental prong tests upon which the case of Katz v. United States was based was that the expectation for privacy is reasonable to the society. Therefore, as per the exemptions outlined in the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act 2001, which guarantees the government to intercept covered communications without a warranty, if it is determinable that an emergency situation is existing or there is probable cause to intercept communications involving: (1) an immediate danger likely to cause serious physical injury or even death to a person; (2) conspiratorial activities threatening/endangering the U.S. national security or (3) conspiratorial activities involving organized crime requiring an oral, wire or electronic communication intercept, the actions can be ratified under the act. Therefore, from these exemptions, it is evident that, both the expectation for privacy is reasonable to the society and the exemptions of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act 2001 have a common a goal or objective meant for the well-being of society. Therefore, it is justifiable to say that The P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act 2001 does not negate the holding in Katz v United State because it provides provisions or rather exemptions upon which the Act can be ratified by courts to justify the actions of the government to ensure the fundamental rights to privacy as stipulated in the Fourth Amendment are upheld. Moreover, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act 2001 takes into consideration the rights of individuals and stipulates when the government can or cannot intercept communications or searches without proper and valid warrants. Therefore, from this critical analysis of the two cases in line with the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, it is evident that both Amendments seeks to protect individual rights of the citizens. Ultimately, the role that these Amendments plays in safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals cannot be overlooked and, therefore, both the society and the government must strive to uphold and protect these rights. References Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, (1967). Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9210492700696416594&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr Miranda v. Arizona, (1966). Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=436 Read More