Aniyah Brooks COR 100/27252 Professor Buffaloe 14 March 2018 The constitutional rights of the suspects in the central park were denied. The Fifth Amendment clearly states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentable or indictment of a Grand jury… nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Therefore these rights were violated because the five teen suspects were unaware of these rights and were interrogated wrongfully. At the crime scene no evidence was found, which shows that instead of law enforcement following the right principles of the law they took advantage and tried to diminish the suspects. There are certain procedures that must be followed …show more content…
In addition to the Fifth Amendment we also have the Miranda vs. Arizona case. It states that “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.” Once again the suspects didn’t know about this law and they just spoke about what went on in the park, once you start speaking to law officials they can use the information you tell them against you in court or as evidence. Law enforcement can use as many …show more content…
It showing that parts of the judicial system are unjust. They put so much fear into the teens that they didn’t know what to do and were just saying anything to be with their family. By making a deal with the teens in exchange for a story I felt that was wrong because they are lying about what happened and they stores have different parts off the back I knew they were going to jail. Later on the right man who committed the crime confessed and the case was vacated against all five teens. They have every right to file for a settlement for what they went through it was unfair and they were granted a settlement for $42 million which they deserved. This goes on to show that people should know about their rights and protections under the United States Constitution, therefore they won’t get
Given the totality of circumstances, an officer has satisfied the probable cause standard to arrest an individual believing that a felony is or has occurred in the officer’s presents. This type of warrantless arrest does not violate an individual’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Decision: Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the Court’s opinion on this case. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that citizens “are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” This right is pushed down to the state level by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ensures that warrantless arrests can be conducted by police officers when the standard of probable cause has been met.
Passed on September 25, 1789 and ratified on December 15, 1791 by Congress, the eighth amendment has been present in the United States for quite some time. Over time, the amendment has morphed and interpreted differently. In the Constitution it states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. In the 1990s, individuals referenced the eighth amendment when discussing capital punishment or the death penalty. Death sentences were most frequent during the 1900s, resulting in some individuals declaring that it went against the amendment (Source A).
Ernesto Arturo Miranda was born on March 9th 1941 in Mesa, Arizona. Miranda had a rough childhood and constantly acted out in school due to losing his mother at a young age and having a bad relationship with his father. Miranda was criminally convicted for the first time during his eighth grade year and in the following year, convicted of burglary. Due to his charges, Miranda was sentenced to reform school, only to be released in 1956. After being locked up for two years the eighteen year old traveled back to his home state, Arizona, and kept busy working for various companies until he became a laborer on a night loading dock for a Phoenix company.
Winston Vazquez III: 6th Amendment Clarence Earl Gideon was a drifter who was very poor and had only an eighth-grade education. On the third day of June 1961, Gideon was charged and then arrested for stealing fifty dollars and a couple of drinks from the Pool House, which was a pool hall/bar. When Gideon was tried in court, he made a request for a lawyer because he did not have enough money to afford one. When Gideon requested a lawyer, he was denied by judge Henry Grady Cochran, who retired during the case and was replaced by Louie Lee Wainwright.
This violated his fourth and fourteen Amendment rights. The courts made impermissible Use of the testimony even if law enforcement had reasonable suspicion. Rule of law: An individual cannot be brought to a police station and fingerprinted without probable cause or a warrant. The courts compared the cases of Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721. (Investigatory detentions).
Two hundred and two years, seven months, and twelve days is what it took our twenty-seventh amendment to be ratified onto our constitution. Was this a very sensitive and complex amendment that needed meticulous studying and logistics planing? No, the twenty-seventh amendment simply states that no Senators or Representatives can alter their pay during their tenure and only can it be changed when their term is up. In the constitution it states "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened". While this seems so simple, there seems to be some inherent complexity to it.
The Fourth Amendment explicitly states and gives “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 the persons or things to be seized” (Smentkowski, 2017). This amendment was designed to protect all citizens, whether or not they fall into the criminally accused category, from unreasonable searches done by the government and police. We are granted personal privacy within a reasonable expectation in our own “persons, homes, papers, and effects” from the government, but this privacy must also be balanced against the government’s interest of public
The fourth amendment secures the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures, if there are no probable cause or certain issue, then it cannot be touched. In addition, if evidence is found that an illegal search has happened,
Even with it, the current protests in Chicago show concern about people's Fourth Amendment rights. Many police officers in Chicago pullover and search people’s cars due to “suspicious” signs of drugs. Most of the people pulled over are black and this not only creates racial tension between
Also a person being interrogated might give a false confession if it were not for the ability to remain silent (Taylor, 2015). The criminal justice system is in the United Stated of America is not without flaws, but it has certain protections built in to safeguard the individual from government oppression. The fifth amendment is one of them, it affords a person protection from being forced to give evidence against themselves. Should this right be violated there are remedies in place whereby any evidence gain from this violation can not be used against the person. There is also the possibility of a civil suit for a violation of one's fifth amendment rights by the government or its
The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.
The Fourth Amendment is “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.” In other words, it is against the law for police to search any person without probable cause and an issued warrant. (Cartoon Surveillance) This protects the privacy of the innocent people that may not be considered guilty. However, giving the people a right to a warrant is only giving them an advantage, while the police and the government have a disadvantage.
The Fifth Amendment has specific protections which includes the right to due process, “rights require the government to provide some type of hearing and procedure whenever has taken some action that deprives
Again, all students claimed their rights to the due process clause of the 14th amendment were violated. The major purpose of the due process clause is for a person to be heard. It basically gives a person the chance to defend accusations that are being made against them. It clearly states that students must be given some type of prior notice, and they must be given some type of arena to hear and defend those accusations.
On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed and The United States of America declared itself a separate and independent nation. On June 21, 1788 the United States Constitution was made official, replacing the Articles of Confederation. Since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended several times in order to better apply to current times and situations the Founding Fathers could not have predicted. Despite all the changes the Constitution has gone through, its core principles remain.