Criminal Procedure Policy Paper University of Phoenix CJA/364 Criminal Procedure 25 March 2014 The first ten amendments of the United States Construction are known as the Bill of Rights. The United States Bill of Rights was formally created on September 25, 1789. Originally the amendments were created and introduced by James Madison. Ratification of the amendments occurred in 1791. The Bill of rights guarantees freedoms that are not explicitly indicated in the Constitution.
Freedoms or rights that are mentioned are freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press and assembly, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, security in personal effects, and freedom from warrants issued without probable cause, indictment by a grand jury for any capital crime, guarantee of a speedy, public trail with an impartial jury, and double jeopardy (Wikipedia, 2014). The use of the Bill of Rights was very rare or the impact of them did not affect society for the first one hundred and fifty years of its existence.
The United States and the Supreme Court did not take the Bill of Rights into serious consideration until the land mark case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931. The case is landmark and begin the movement of the recognition and serious consideration of the Bill of Rights. This case basic principles are to apply the free speech in jurisprudence and freedom of press. This amendment directly affects the first amendment of the Bill of Rights and is landmark because they had made no important decisions about protecting free speech rights until this case (Institute, 2014).
Looking in the twentieth century, the fourteenth amendment became into the spotlight. In the case Talton v. Mayes, the court had ruled constitution protection of rights (Institute, 2014). Examine the Fourth Amendment, the United States Constitution provides “The right of the people 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 person or things to be seized” (School, 2014).
To summarize what the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is implying with these words, is to protect the two fundamental freedoms, which are the right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary invasions. Understanding the word seizure can mean more than one definition. A seizure is referred to the interference with a person’s or individual’s possession in their property or their possessory. In my last class the word reasonable was brought up in many cases dealing the criminal insane cases.
A person is seized when law enforcement personnel use physical force to restrain the person if a reasonable person in the same or a similar situation would not feel free the to leave the situation. The previous owner of abandoned property cannot allege an unreasonable seizure of that abandoned property. Abandoned property is property left behind by its owner in a manner in which the owner abandons the possessory interest in the property and no longer retains a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the search” (School, 2014).
This is explaining that if a reasonable person is seized when police officers usy force to restrain them when probable cause exist. If the property has been abandoned by the owner it is no longer considered reasonable expectation of privacy and is liable to be searched. Looking into the case of Wolf v. Colorado back in 1949, we can examine that the courts ruled that through the Fourth Amendment it guarantees to every citizen of that state the right to have due process and the equal protection of the laws.
The Fourth Amendment directly effect law enforcement because “Not every search and seizure that is scrutinized in state and federal court raises a Fourth Amendment issue. The Fourth Amendment protects against searches and seizure conducted by the government or pursuant to government direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such as private investigators, suspicious spouses, or nosey neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment” (Law, 2010).
Examining the Fourth Amendment further and its application to law enforcement and agencies alike, is that a person who knowingly exposes to the public, even if it is in the privacy of his own home, work, or office, is not under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Looking into the past court cases, Katz v, United States, demonstrates that if a citizen choses or seeks to preserves his privacy, even in an area accessible to the public, can and may be constitutionally protected under the Fourth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” (School C. U. , 2014).
In police procedures, the Fifth Amendment describes the limit of power that police or law enforcement have over suspect or charging the same suspect or person for the same crime. The idea of giving every citizen the right to a due process clause stems back from the Magna Carta in 1215. Police and law enforcement are directly affected by this amendment because of grand juries. Grand juries are selected from a group of prospective jurors who can potentially serve on any given day on any juror capacity which usually consist of twelve or twenty-three members. The second way that law enforcement is affect by the Fifth Amendment is the prohibition of double jeopardy.
The term double jeopardy refers to the protection against the harassment of law enforcement or an individual being prosecuted for the same alleged act. The third way that law enforcement is the prohibition against required self-incrimination. The landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, established that law enforcement must make a suspect aware of all of their rights when taken into custody. A witness or suspect may declare that they “plea the Fifth” and by stating these words or phrases, the suspect or witness does not wish to answer any more questions because the questions he is answering may be self-incriminating. The next way that law enforcement is affect by the Fifth Amendment is the guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial.
Due process for all citizen guarantees that the parties involved will receive a fair and orderly proceeding. The last aspect of the Fifth Amendment that affect law enforcement is the promise that the government will not seize private property without paying market value. This effects the courts and law enforcement, but every day citizens. Under the write of execution is a court order granted to put in force a judgment of possession obtained by plaintiff from a court. This affects citizens, because they may have civil court cases against plaintiffs or business that have done corrupt business. In the Sixth Amendment and Hearsay guarantees that each suspect of criminal defendant the right to have counsel and with the witness against him.
The Sixth Amendment also states that no hearsay shall be intended for use in criminal case. The intention of the Sixth Amendment was originally intended to make sure that every defendant would have an attorney when they went to trial. The way that the Sixth Amendment affect law enforcement is the extensions of the right to counsel. Criminal procedures and investigations are constantly changing and the criminal suspect must be read his Miranda rights which directly intertwines with Fifth Amendment. Many times in the past the criminal suspects were not given counsel and during their interrogations the accused produced pretrial information that eventually settled the accused fate prior to court or criminal proceedings.
In the criminal court case of Estes v. Texas back in 1965, the Supreme Court decided that the media presence in the courtroom was affect the defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial. These Bill of Rights that have been ratified, revisited, and re-examined in many court cases as mentioned above. One could conclude, that the criminal justice system is an ever changing and evolving system. Every year, laws become revised and bills are re-examined. This is due to the changing economy and world. The economy directly affects criminal activity. The Bill of Rights re-examined what our Founders of this great country have already established and has finely tuned over the years.
Since the construction of the United States Constitution, twenty-seven amendments have been added to the United States Constitution since 1789. These twenty-seven amendments that have already been added just proves that the criminal justice system is indeed an evolving system that changes with society and the world that surrounds it. The most significant rights or guarantees for any citizen or individual protected by civil rights are included in the ratification of the Bill of Rights which are the Amendment one through ten. Throughout the history of the United States of America, we can conclude from the many events have been seen and passed, all have been or will leave their mark on our nation.
As mentioned earlier throughout this essay, that as the times age, people change along with our government, Many of these changes occur or happen in our everyday life or affect us directly. We are often ignorant of these changes until they touch us. Impacts of these severities are a direct result of our changing lives and our ever changing Amendment. Our Founding Fathers constructed this map or guide line that the children of America must adopt. The Constitution being one of the oldest documents in United States history, to by many to have said that the Constitution has “stood the test of time”.