Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
Introduction
The United States Constitution was framed without a Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments came to be parts of the Bill of Rights, although this was framed amid the lack of confidence of an oppressive regime. The fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments provided rules to safeguard individual liberty. The Sixth Amendment protects citizens against unfair denials of life and liberty by ordering the federal government to give protections to all suspected criminal offenders (Chhablani, 2008).
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unpredictable violations of privacy by government authorities. This protects citizens from government seizure of private property, including land, home, and fruits of labor, infringement into privacy, and searches or seizures without evidence but only based on hearsay (The U.S. Constitution decoded, 2016).
Court officials must have a warrant based on probable cause before a search can occur, or it should first be determined by a judge that there is probable cause before a search can be justified. In his doctoral dissertation, Gaillard (2016) explains: “The suspicion must be enough that a wary person would believe the suspect might be guilty of the offense and a search would provide evidence to prove it” (p. 21). The response is what is known as the “exclusionary rule” (Gaillard, 2016).
When the Fourth Amendment was written, it applied to agents, particularly soldiers of the state. However, in other cases, such as Fourth Amendment rights for students, in particular, the Supreme Court provided explanation in Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District (1969 as cited in Gaillard, 2016), and said that the Fourth Amendment did not determine the extent to which school officials acted in lo parentis in cases involving minors searched by school authorities. The decision says that students should not have to forfeit their rights while inside a school building, but school officials are free to give school students and personnel with a safe and secure environment (Gaillard, 2016).
Fourth Amendment rights of students were decided by the Supreme Court. For example, in 1985, the Court in T.L.O., found that school officials act as state agents, as well as in loco parentis, and have to answer to school incidents within the concept of the Fourth Amendment. One question arose on how to balance the needs and safety of the school premises with the individual rights of students, especially in cases where weapons and drugs constituted the need for the search. The Court ruled that “in searches where the time taken to obtain a search warrant before proceeding could result in harm to others, the school official needed only reasonable suspicion to search the student” (Gaillard, 2016, p. 22).
The “reasonableness standard” needed an explanation from the Court. According to Rapp (Beyer, 1977 as cited in Gaillard, 2016), the test of reasonable suspicion must meet two conditions. The search has got to be justified from the beginning, i.e. there must be justifiable basis to search for evidence in order to prove that the individual violated the law or the school rules. The second condition must consider the scope of the search, and this would refer to the student’s age, history, and school record; the gravity of the situation; the determination of the school official to resolve the problem as it was about the school and individual safety; the school official’s previous experience with the individual; and the consistency of the information used to justify the search. More information of each factor, decided by individual courts, could determine the result of school related cases (Devaney, 2010).
The Fifth Amendment
The courts have fought with the protection of a juvenile’s constitutional rights, more so with the right against self-incrimination. Before the Gault decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona (1966 as cited in Gaillard, 2016), ruled that suspects must be given warnings before being subjected to custodial interrogation, based on the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
One great example is that of Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004 as cited in Gaillard, 2016), where a 17-year-old male student was interviewed by a police officer and was not given a warning under Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Alvarado first denied involvement in truck robbery and murder of the driver, but later confessed that he helped a friend steal the truck and hide the gun. During the hearing Alvarado moved to have his interview statements suppressed on Miranda basis, but the trial court denied the request. The District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction and further ruled that a Miranda warning was not necessary as Alvarado was not in custody during the interview based on the test in Thompson v. Keohane (1995 as cited in Gaillard, 2016). This latter case required a court to accept the circumstances of the interrogation, and whether or not a reasonable person would have felt the liberty to leave. This was further affirmed by the Federal District Court, but the Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal reversed the decision upon the reasoning that the lower court had not taken into account Alvarado’s age and inexperience in a police interrogation, which could have prevented him from leaving the interview (Gaillard, 2016).
Another case, the Fare v. Michael C. (1979 as cited in Gaillard, 2016), a juvenile Michael C., who was under probation, was investigated for another crime. Michael asked for his probation officer but was denied. Michael asked that his statements be suppressed in juvenile court, for violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. The lower court denied his request but the California Supreme Court reversed the decision, stating that his request for a probation officer was similar to requesting for an attorney. The last recourse, the U.S. Supreme Court, reversed the decision of California Supreme Court, stating that probation officers are not attorneys and do not hold the same unique role that attorneys have (Guillard, 2016).
The Sixth Amendment
According to Cruz (2011), Kent v. United States (1966) was the first juvenile case handled by the United States Supreme Court. Fourteen-year-old Morris A. Kent, Jr. was arrested for housebreakings and attempted purse snatching. He was given probation and placed under the custody of his mother. Then, in 1961, Kent was again arrested for raping a woman in her apartment and stealing her wallet. Kent was interrogated from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and then the whole day on the following day by police interrogators. There were two decisions regarding this case. The Watkins (1964 as cited in Cruz, 2011) decision ruled that Kent should have access to social service files in waiver cases, and the Black decision in 1965, which ruled that a juvenile was entitled to a lawyer in a waiver hearing. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the two lower court decisions (Cruz, 2011).
Fifteen-year-old Gerald Gault from Gila County, Arizona was placed on three-month probation for being in company of another boy who had stolen a wallet. One day in 1964, in company with Ronald Lewis, they called Mrs. Cook and uttered words like “Are your cherries ripe today?” Mrs. Cook had them arrested by the sheriff. Gault’s parents were not informed of the incident until the next day. During the hearing, Gault was not represented by counsel, the hearing was not recorded, the victim was not around, and no evidence about the case was presented. The judge made a representation that Gault confessed of the obscene remarks, but Gault’s parents denied that Gerard ever admitted about the obscene remarks and that he only admitted dialing the phone. Gault was released to the parents until a new hearing was set. The judge later sentenced Gault to be admitted to the State Industrial School for Boys until he reached 21 years old. The Gaults, through their lawyer, filed a writ of habeas corpus, questioning the holding of Gerard Gault. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the young man’s constitutional due process rights had been violated. Juveniles “have the right to notice and counsel, to question witnesses, and to protection against self-incrimination” (387 U.S. 1, S.Ct. 1428 (1967 as cited in Cruz, 2011).
References
Chhablani, S. (2008). Disentangling the sixth amendment. Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(3), 487-550. Retrieved from http://www.constitutiondecoded.com/us-constitution-3rd-4th-5th-amendments.html
Cruz, S. (2011). From juvenile court to the adult criminal justice system: An examination of judicial waiver (Doctoral thesis, The University of Southern Mississippi). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.sothebysinstitute.com:2195/pqdtft/docview/915643592/fulltextPDF/76D22E4F32BE47D7PQ/1?accountid=13958
Devaney, J. (2010). The Bill of Rights and federalism: An interpretation in light of the unwritten constitution (Doctoral thesis, The Catholic University of America). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.sothebysinstitute.com:2195/pqdtft/docview/499955176/fulltextPDF/A0E9AFE9B3FE4FCEPQ/1?accountid=13958
Gaillard, N. (2016). Balancing school safety and K-12 public school students’ fourth and fifth amendment rights: Court cases from 2004 to 2015 (Doctoral thesis, The University of Alabama). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.sothebysinstitute.com:2195/pqdtft/docview/1798838933/fulltextPDF/35738C3F26CB4126PQ/7?accountid=13958
Mercer, W. (2011). Locating liberties: Barron V. Baltimore and the role of rights in the early American republic (Doctoral thesis, University of Florda). Retrieved from
The U.S. Constitution decoded: Amendments 1-10: The Bill of Rights. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.constitutiondecoded.com/us-constitution-3rd-4th-5th-amendments.html
