Introduction
The United States Constitution can be described as the highest law of the land. During court proceedings, the constitution is the supreme law that is applicable in determining the outcome of criminal litigation, but other laws arise from the Amendments to the Constitution. The United States Constitution often guides how the government should function, the jurisdiction of the presidency, American Congress, and the Supreme Court. It is, however, paramount to note that all American states have their own Constitutions that they enact and follow, but the federal constitution is considered the highest law that overrides other state laws in criminal procedures. Often, the Federal Constitution is subject to changes which are done through the Constitutional Amendments. These amendments contain a set of rights of the American citizens that requires being revised to either restrict or allow certain actions of the people. The federal Constitution in America has had multiple amendments that have been done on it which are closely related to the Bill of rights. The amendments describe in details the means through which the principle of due process can be fulfilled (Bergman, Lefrancois & Wesson, 2001). They are meant to provide a safer legal and living environment for every American citizen and other residents. This Paper will, in particular, describe and evaluate the constitutional safeguards that have been provided in the 4th, 5th, and 6th United States Federal Constitutional Amendments. The paper will also identify the implications that these Amendments have on the court proceedings in the United States.
Fourth Amendment
The fourth amendment to the American Constitution was ratified in 1868 and was seen as means to secure the rights of former slaves who had been freed during the American Civil War. This amendment was enacted to address issues related to search and seizure. It limits the American government powers to search and seize property belonging to a private citizen without a warrant and a reasonable cause that has been explicitly declared. The private property applies to personal papers and documents, houses, and a citizens’ own body without probable cause (Alexander, & Alexander, 2011). Over time, however, this amendment has undergone several changes that have been initiated by the Supreme Court to allow police officers to search persons who have been arrested, and the security officers have the right to search properties that they feel may expose dangers to them or the suspect. When applied to juveniles, the fourth amendment has some restrictions since only those under the age of eighteen years and have been accused of any criminal behavior are guaranteed the rights granted by this amendment (Hanley, 1980). Other juveniles who have not been indicted for criminal conduct have a guarantee to be protected against their legal rights violations, and they can sue the state for violating their rights.
Law officers in America have been constitutionally entrusted with the inherent power to conduct criminal investigations, perform searches and seizures on American citizens and their properties and make arrests. Sometimes, the security details may use excessive force while they are carrying out their own duties. This amendment was meant to ensure that the power of the police officers is exercised within the confines of the law. In court cases, when the powers of the police have been exercised outside the constitutional provisions, the court can reject an application to admit any evidence that has been collected by the prosecution and term it as illegal. The safeguards that have been enumerated by the 4th Amendment are however applicable to actions that have been taken by a government official or private citizens that have acted with a direction from a government official. Actions that are done by purely private citizens such as private investigators are not covered in this amendment (Bergman, Lefrancois & Wesson, 2001).
In court proceedings, individuals must also demonstrate that there exist a reasonable privacy expectation on their property that is to be searched or seized. The Supreme Court stated that a person who knowingly exposes their property both at home and in the office could not be protected using the Fourth Amendment Protection. Once a person has reasonably demonstrated that they possess an expectation of privacy where they are to be searched or property to be seized, the Fourth amendment then goes ahead to question the kind and nature of protection that is guaranteed.
The 4th amendment expresses some form of preference to arrests that are purely based on warrants unless there are special reasonable circumstances where unwarranted searches are acceptable. This is applicable when arresting a felony committing a crime in a public place or when there are misdemeanors that are committed in the arresting officer’s presence. Felony arrests on points that are not open for public scrutiny require arrest warrants unless the police officer is in hot pursuit of a felony who is fleeing. This amendment was aimed at striking a balance between the daily practical work environment of the police officer and the need for citizens’ privacy and freedoms (Bergman, Lefrancois & Wesson, 2001).
When an arrest or search warrant has not been used, the arresting officer will be required to present evidence to judges or magistrates demonstrating that there is a probable cause and in it a crime has been committed by the suspect. This demonstrates that there is some trustworthy basis to believe that the suspect indeed committed a crime and, therefore, the exclusionary rule is applicable. The arrest or search warrants must also be objective and without inaccuracies so that it is admissible in any constitutional court of law otherwise, this will jeopardize the validity of the warrant and the admissibility of the evidence. This guarantees that American citizens can get justice in trials.
Fifth Amendment
The American Constitution’s fifth ammendment statuses that no individual can be held answerable for a capital or other disreputable delinquency without there being an impeachment by a grand bench. There is an exception in cases that arise in naval or land forces or when committed by a militia group when they are in the actual line of service such as in a time of war, or when a person is being subjected to the same offense twice and such expose deemed to jeopardize their life. It also guarantees that a person shall not be required to be a witness in criminal cases that they are involved in as this will deprive such people of their rights to liberty, life, and property. A due process of law shall be followed when private property is to be taken for public utilization and in such a case, a private citizen must be justly compensated. This law is applied in juvenile courts just in the same way it is applicable in adult courts.
When a criminal is arrested and taken into custody, the person is guaranteed of their rights under the Fifth Amendment. In the Miranda Rulings, the Supreme Court upheld that under this amendment, statements that would be made by suspects during custodial interrogation are inadmissible in a court of law unless the suspect has been informed of their right to remain silent, consult an attorney before they are questioned by a legal attorney and that they have a right to access and use an attorney during the interrogation by the police. This ruling also guarantees that the suspected party can have a state counsel appointed on his behalf by the court if they cannot afford to hire one. The suspects are required to be informed that any statements that they make during interrogation can be used against them during the actual trial.
When a criminal suspect, makes an explicit request to consult an attorney during police interrogation, the process must cease and otherwise any more statements collected without the request having been honored can be ruled inadmissible. This request for an attorney will however not in any way occur during the lineup process when the victim is required to review and identify the suspect. This amendment cannot be used as an objection by an individual in situations where they have no interests in the privacy of their physical characteristics such as blood test requests or voice exemplar. The purpose of this amendment was to deter government officials to compel a criminal suspect to make confessions that may incriminate them through mechanisms such as coercion, force or deception (Alexander, & Alexander, 2011). Confessions that do not follow the guidelines of this amendment are generally considered to be unreliable and uncivilized.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution, therefore, guarantees three rights which are related to criminal procedures namely; every defendant is guaranteed to be indicated through a grand jury prior to standing a trial in any federal court, prohibits the state or federal government from subjecting criminal suspects to multiple prosecutions and punishments for single offences which is otherwise known as right against double jeopardy and assures each respondent the universal right to the due route in court proceedings.
Under the Fifth Amendment, the Due Procedure Article demands that felonious proceedings be carried out in an impartial way by unbiased judges. The judges must allow the accused persons to be fully present during their trial and in defending their character against an accusation by the prosecution. This means that court proceedings that result in arbitrary punishment are likely to be considered as unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that due process is applied in all phases of criminal proceedings right from the pre-trial interrogation to court hearings and post-trial appeals (Mason & Stephenson, 2015). This ensures that court proceedings are fair and just.
The Fifth Amendment states that criminal suspects shall enjoy a right to be tried by an impartial jury either by a state or federal court and that the criminal proceedings ought to be speedy and public. The criminal procedure must also take place in the state in which the crime was committed. This provision was a reinforcement of the Fourth Amendment, which ascertained the suspect’s right to have full information of nature as well as what they have been accused of. This amendment applies to both juvenile and adult courts in the same way with no exceptions.
Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment laws are invoked when a criminal suspect has been arrested or formally accused. Before the suspect has been fully formally accused, the government has no statutory and constitutional obligation to investigate any criminal activity associated with a person. Delays that are impermissible jeopardize the safeguards of the Sixth Amendment as they cause the suspect to suffer prejudice (Mason & Stephenson, 2015). The restrictions to the Safeguards of this amendment do not, however, apply where the defendant’s own actions tend to lengthen the criminal proceedings.
This amendment asserts the right of the defendant in that the defendants must receive formal notifications of the criminal accusations that have been lodged against them by the government, and that defendants cannot be charged, tried, sentenced or convicted of crimes that have a variation from the formal charge notice they had received from the state. When these rights have been violated and in that case it is established that the criminal suspect is convicted, the Supreme Court has a duty to set aside the sentence and order a fresh trial if there are still evidence to incriminate the defendant.
When a defendant is charged in a court of law, the prosecutor must determine whether the defendant fully understands the charges and if they need further explanation. They are then given an opportunity to plead guilty or not guilty before the trial begins. This amendment also guarantees the defendants of the right to access a counsel at every stage in the criminal proceedings when they require being represented in the court proceedings. Denial of this right to be represented by a trial can lead to a declaration by a higher court as unfair and for that, the conviction may be reversed.
When the State prosecution machinery has finished giving its evidence for the case, the defendant must be guaranteed that they will be given an opportunity to defend themselves through counsel, witnesses or by their own account and confessions. The suspect through this Amendment has a right to obtain witnesses who will favor them when the ruling is being carried out. The court can give a suspect a defense lawyer who will be paid through public funds as it happened in Oklahoma City Bombing trial of 1997. The suspect, Timothy McVeigh, had a court-appointed lawyer whose fees was paid by the American government ("Criminal Procedure - Further Readings", 2016).
Conclusion
Police when dealing with the juveniles must offer them the three Miranda Rights before the custodial interrogation are carried out. This is also done when they are dealing with adults. The law enforcement officers must also have a search or arrest warrant before they perform their arresting duties and must presume that the suspect is innocent until proven guilty by a fair jury in a speedy, open trial. These constitutional safeguards were enacted to protect individuals before they are arrested, when they are being arrested, during custodial investigations, during the actual trial and post-trial appeals. They are also enacted to deter government officials from unfairly treating criminal suspects. In courts of law, both adults and juveniles are treated as having equal rights and obligations (Hanley, 1980).
References
Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2011). American public school law. Cengage Learning.
Bergman, B., Lefrancois, A. G., & Wesson, M. A. R. I. A. N. N. E. (2001). New Developments in Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment Law. NEW MEXICO LAW REVIEW, 31(1), 175-200.
Criminal Procedure - Further Readings. (2016). Law.jrank.org. Retrieved 30 May 2016, from http://law.jrank.org/pages/12457/Criminal-Procedure.html
Hanley, K. T. (1980). Fourth Amendment Protection for the Juvenile Offender: State, Parent, and the Best Interests of the Minor. Fordham L. Rev., 49, 1140.
Mason, A. T., & Stephenson, G. (2015). American constitutional law: introductory essays and selected cases. Routledge.
