- The Fourth Amendment
Terry Vs. Ohio 1968 is one of the landmark judicial rulings by the United States Supreme Court that maintained the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth amendment does not give the police the authority of conducting arbitrary searches and seizures on individuals if they are suspecting of committing a crime. The Fourth Amendment declares “the right of the people to be secures in the persons houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; shall not be violated and no warrants shall be issued, 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.”
In case an individual is suspected to have the intent or is about to commit a crime, the police has a constitutional right of searching the individual. However, for the protection of the individual’s rights, the police have the authority to perform a frisk search that includes a quick search on the outer clothing of the individual to determine if they are armed or not. The threshold for such searches must be without doubt and not an officer’s gut instinct. The judges upheld the Fourth amendment arguing based on the limitation of the exclusionary role of the government. Underscored on this assumption is the fact that the law is to protect persons and not subject them to public humiliation.
During his argument, Chief Justice Warren initiated his argument with a liberal approach of individual privacy. In his argument, Justice Warren posited that the Fourth Amendment protected “people and not places” from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” However, this argument was debunked by a conservative bench that questioned on the applicability of this situation “in all the circumstances of this on street encounter.” The police argued that a certain advantage is required to ascertain if individual cannot be stopped before committing a crime. On the other hand, the civilians would be worried of a police force that could overstep their mandate and invade on the civilian’s privacy. For the court, the cause of disagreement was solely on the usefulness of the evidence acquired after the search was conducted. If the search was successful in obtaining evidence that point to the intent of a crime, then the prosecution had a case.
On his part, Justice Douglas disagreed with the idea of permitting the police to conduct stop searches. He argued that such an action was comparable to give the police powers of a magistrate and could lead to modern day lawlessness. He argued that such an action could only be allowed through a constitutional amendment (392 U.S 1 at 37).
An overview of the Terry vs. Ohio gave the police a reasonable authority to investigate suspicious activity and to act to prevent crime from occurring. However, a revisionist approach of the case would point to flaws that occur not out of the intent of the case but the manner in which it has been applied. In my view, the Terry Vs. Ohio case failed to strike a balance between law enforcement and individual freedom. In fact, subsequent rulings by other supreme courts erased the remnants of individual freedom to the advantage of the police all in pursuit of perfect law enforcement. Before Terry vs. Ohio, the police would act with disregard of the Fourth amendment and individuals would be arrested or stopped arbitrarily at the will of the police officers. However, the case did not solve that; instead, it has the police a chance to persecute inner city residents and minorities (Katz, 2007). Had the court listened to the argument presented by Justice Douglas, a situation where individual’s freedom is traded for the sake of law enforcement would have ensued. While the Fourth amendment provided a ceiling for the actions of the police, Terry vs. Ohio gave the police an avenue to take America back to pre-fourth amendment days.
- The Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendment of the United States’ constitution was done in 1791. It was done to provide procedural safeguards which were made to protect the rights of people accused of various crimes and also to secure life, liberty, and private property. Like the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment has five distinctions that represent each facet of individual rights. The first clause of the amendment provides specifics on the treatment of individuals suspected of criminal doings. It says “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 the actual service in time of war or public danger.” This jury requirements calls for due process of conviction that involves an exparte hearing. If the jury agrees that there is enough evidence to guarantee trial, it then indicts the person which permeates the trail to go ahead.
The second portion of the Fifth Amendment is called the double jeopardy. The double jeopardy clause alienates the citizens from double prosecution after they have been acquitted of a criminal offense by a court of law. The essence is to protect citizens from double punishment. The third clause of the Fifth Amendment is also called the “self-incrimination” clause is intended to protect the citizens from being subjected to self –incrimination. Self incrimination refers to the process of self-testifying. In the United States constitution, an individual is deemed innocent until proven guilty. Like other evidences, words are capable of being used as evidence against the person. Because of this law, it is advisable for one to keep silent. The fourth section of the Fifth Amendment is called the due process. It provides the mechanism that the government has to follow while using private property for government purposes. The due process clause is famous for the eminent domain aspects that it contains.
Under the Fifth Amendment of the United State’s constitution, the owner of an acquired property has a right of compensation which is defined by the fair market value of the property. Compensation is argued for through a process defined as “condemnation proceedings” (Larson, 2004). Bernman V. Parker 348 U.S.26 (1954) is one of the most influential cases in the history of the eminent of domain in the United States. Bernman V. Parker redefined the interpretation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States that emphasized the compensation of individuals whose property is acquired by the government for public use. In 1945, Congress created an act that was aimed at redeveloping rundown areas of Washington DC; a new council called the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency was given powers to acquire private property with just compensation. Bernman and his other friends objected the seizure of their property and filed a case with the Supreme Court. In the ruling, the Supreme Court ruled against Bernman arguing that “the Fifth Amendment does not limit Congress' power to seize private property with just compensation to any specific purpose. The Court concluded that the power to determine the values to consider when seizing property for public welfare belongs to Congress. (Bernman V. Parker, 1954). This case was later quoted in the landmark ruling in Kelo v. City of New London in 2005.
An example of a state case the applied the eminent of domain is City of Overland Park, Kansas, A Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Dale F. Jenkins Revocable Trust , Appellant, Allen A. Newell, Appellee.No. 78259. - December 12, 1997. In this case, the city of Overland Park, Kansas filed a petition use the track of land belonging to the Jenkins (real estate) and Allen Newell (barbershop) to construct an intersection called the 151 street and Metcalf Avenue. For the construction to go on there was needed to demolish the developments in the track of land condemned. The district judge entered an order approving the appraisers' report that appraised the track of to the amount of $175,500 on February 22, 1996. Jenkins appealed this decision on a higher court. The higher court reinstated the earlier decision (City of Overland Park, v. Jenkins and Newell, 1997).
- Sixth Amendment of the United States
The sixth amendment (1791) of the constitution of the United States of America is also a continuation of the part of the Bill of Rights. The sixth amendment is used as one of the providers of the guidelines used in the criminal court proceedings. The pinnacle of the sixth amendment is the belief that “justice delayed, is justice denied.” The amendments serve the purpose of balancing the societal and individual rights in the first clause by evoking the aspect of the speedy trials. In addition, the sixth amendment serves the purpose of securing justice and mental astuteness of the accused by requiring speedy trials. Similarly, it adds value by granting satisfaction of transparency and fairness in criminal law by seeking the establishment of fair jurors. Jeremy Hall, in the book General Principles of Criminal Law documents some of the most important aspect of criminology. In page 5, he writes about the seven basic principles of criminal law that include: 1) Men’s area 2) act effort 3) the concurrence (fusion) of act and harm 4) harm 5) Causation 6) punishment 7) legality. The principles can be allocated to the conceptions of law, crime, and punishment. The combined meaning of the principle can be stated in a single generalization that states “the harm of the forbidden in a penal law must be imputed by any normal adult male who voluntarily commits it with the criminal intent, and such a person must be subjected to the legality prescribed punishment” (p.5). In criminal studies, the idea is to present an escape from this generalization. Perhaps the most important aspect of the basic criminal law is the legality of the law. In American criminal justice system, the legality of law is defined by the existence of the law forbidding the criminal act before the individual commits the crime. An offensive or harmful behavior is not criminal unless the law prohibited it before the offense was committed. In the U.S constitution, the idea of “ex post facto” alludes to the fact that crimes committed before the existence of legal laws forbidding the very act are not subject to the law (Cole & Smith, 2005).
In the Sixth amendment, the aspects of the public trial and the jury thresholds are key elements of the aspect of the due process. The importance of the two elements includes the desire for impartiality. The sixth amendment was designed to protect the law and the individual from bias. This is achieved by placing on the hands of the jurors. Accordingly, the prosecution and the witness all play an effective role in the selection of the jury. Similarly, the Department of Justice in the World War II era cases Ex parte Quirin and In re Territo also provide evidence where the president can invoke the rights of the citizens to fair trial in the court of law. However, the arguments arising from article 11 of the United States constitution is debatable since it is not clear whether the classification of enemy combatants include combatants captured in an actual war or sourced with intelligence. Opponents argue that congress disapproved such actions by the enactment of the 18 U.S.C 4001 (a).
Batson v. Kentucky (1986) is perhaps the most famous case for the sixth amendment. In the case Batson, a man of African-American heritage was charged with burglary of second- degree and in possession of receipts of goods that were stolen. In the process of selecting the jury, the prosecutor using preemptory challenges, challenged the eligibility of the four black persons present in the jury. Eventually, the jury was composed of all whites. Batson was eventually convicted of the crime. The case raised an important discussion on whether the prosecutor had the right for raising peremptory challenges on the eligibility of the black members of the jury. It was debatable if the prosecution violated the Sixth and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
- Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
The Fourteenth amendment is perhaps one of the most famous cases in the United States. The Fourteenth amendment granted citizenship and legal rights to African Americans and slaves after the end of the American Civil War. The amendment read that “all persons born and naturalized in the United States”. In total, the amendments have five sections, four begun after the 1866 but later and conglomerated into a single amendment. In 1954, in the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, the court ruled for segregation of schools based on race. This rejected the 1896 ruling of Plessey Vs Ferguson which ruled against racial mix but gave the blacks the opportunity to have equal facilities with the whites.
The significance of the Brown vs. Board of education was significant in that it exposed how the long term effects of discrimination could not be tolerated any more. In 1954, in the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, the court ruled for segregation of schools based on race. This rejected the 1896 ruling of Plessey Vs Ferguson which ruled against racial mix but gave the blacks the opportunity to have equal facilities with the whites. In the short run, the ruling created even more racial tension between whites and blacks but in the long run, it provided a base in which the blacks could use to demand for more reforms.
In addition to granting equality, the amendment also ensured that former military officers that were on the side of the confederacy were barred from holding a state official position. The inhibition could only be lifted by two thirds of votes in both houses at the congress.
Work Cited
Katz, L. (2007). Terry vs. Ohio at Thirty-Five: A revisionist View. Mississippi Law Journal, vol. 74, Issue 12
Larson, Aaron. “Eminent Domain.” ExpertLaw - Your Source for Legal Information. Law Offices of Aaron Larson, 2004. Web. 12 Jan. 2012. <http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/eminent_domain.html>.
