The US Constitution is the supreme law that governs the United States of America. The law created a national government and primary laws, and also established specific basic human rights for the citizens. The constitution contains seven Articles and 27 Amendments. The constitution has been in existence for more than 200 years and in the process, it has undergone important ramifications to make it better (The United States Court, 2014). The paper will discuss the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments of the US Constitution, and how they apply in adult and juvenile court proceedings.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from carrying out unfair searches and seizures of properties owned by private individuals. It protects individuals against arbitrary arrests. It forms the basis of law dealing with stop-and-frisk, search warrants, wiretaps, safety inspections and any other form of surveillance. However, the Fourth Amendment does not provide a guarantee against all searches and seizures. It only guarantees searches and seizures that are considered irrational under the law (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). Before conducting any searches deemed reasonable under the law, there are two important interests that need balancing. First, on one side, it is important to consider the intrusion on an individual’s rights as contained in the Fourth Amendment. On the other hand, genuine government interests like public safety needs deliberations.
Most courts have acknowledged that minors have privacy protection under the 4th Amendment during criminal proceedings and the right to privacy in general. However, the degree of the minor’s right to protection under the 4th Amendment in a juvenile court setting is still unclear. The Supreme Court the US has declined to deem whether the alleged juvenile offenders are entitled to 4th Amendment protection. Some states in the USA have recognized the 4th Amendment rights of juvenile offenders. However, such states have established the limits and scope of protection to suit itself. Additionally, the state courts do not provide sufficient reasons to explain the granting of alleged juvenile offenders 4th Amendment protection, making the debate open (Hanley, 1981). In adult court proceedings, the 4th Amendment fully recognizes the rights of an adult to privacy for the property and personal effects. Such rights need observation while conducting legitimate seizures and searches.
The Fifth Amendment requires following a number of rights that are relevant in both civil and criminal court proceedings. In criminal proceedings, the Amendment provides a guarantee to a grand jury; protects against self-incrimination, and prohibits “double jeopardy.” The Amendment also stipulates that any court proceedings that may deny a citizen liberty, life and property must follow the due process of law (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). The Amendments safeguards an individual from being held answerable to a capital offense, unless on the indictment or presentment of a grand jury. The Double Jeopardy Clause in the Amendment seeks to protect a person from harassment through continuous prosecutions from the same alleged act. The clause also recognizes the importance of an acquittal. Through the clause, an individual will be saved from the physical, psychological, emotional and financial problems that accompany several trials of the same alleged crime. Finally, the Amendment also protects a defendant from giving a testimony that may incriminate them. In such instances, the defendant may “plead the Fifth” to avoid giving any testimony that would result into self-incrimination.
The US Supreme Court has provisions for juvenile proceedings under the Fifth Amendment. In juvenile proceedings, the juvenile needs to be accorded the fundamental constitutional protections. Such protections include the right to acquaintance with and cross-examine witnesses; the right to a lawyer and the right to advance notification of charges. Even though the court proceedings against juveniles are non-criminal in nature, the Amendment still protects them against self-incrimination. Moreover, the juveniles may not be accorded the right to a test by a panel of judges as done to adults. The reason is that juvenile delinquents are not regarded as criminals, and hence, the Constitution does not provide a provision for a jury in such cases. The main difference between adult and juvenile proceedings under the Fifth Amendment lies in the trial by a jury and speedy and public trial. These two components of the Amendment mainly apply to adults. In juvenile proceedings, most decisions are determined by a judge rather than a jury. The privacy and confidentiality of juveniles are coming before the courts need protection.
The Sixth Amendment stipulates that a criminal defendant has the right to a quick public trial; the right to have an impartial jury and the right to a lawyer. The Amendment also includes the rights of the criminal defendant to know the accusers, and the type of evidence and charges leveled against him or her. It also allows a defendant to obtain his or her preferred witnesses, and have the assistance of an attorney (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). The Amendment mostly applies in cases involving terrorists. The provisions in the Amendment to a criminal defendant since it safeguards one from oppressive and undue custody before trial. The provisions also help lessen the unease and concern that accompanies public accusation, and to minimize the effects of a long delay that may impair an accused ability to defend him.
In juvenile proceedings, the right to an attorney falls under the Fifth and the Sixth Amendments. Additionally, both juveniles and adults have the right to a counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The right applies all through the stages of the proceedings, from the initial hearings to the appeal stage. Most states have come up with provisions to limit a juvenile’s ability to waive his or her Sixth Amendment’s right to a counsel. Other states provide that a juvenile may consult an attorney before making a decision on waiving their right to a lawyer under the 6th Amendment.
There are safeguards that came up as a result of some of the violations of the above-mentioned Amendments. Key among them includes the Right to Counsel, the Miranda Warnings, speedy trial, and the exclusionary rule. The section of the paper will seek to explain how these safeguards apply in the day-to-day operations of juvenile and adult courts.
The Right to the Counsel provides that a criminal defendant has the right to get a lawyer to assist in their defense. In a situation where the defendant cannot afford an attorney, the state is entitled to provide one. The provisions of the Right to Counsel exist in the Sixth Amendment, and it only applies for federal prosecutions (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). Not until 1963 after the Gideon v. Wainwright case did the Right to Counsel starts to apply for state prosecution. Most importantly, the right does not apply for state felony cases. The Supreme Court stipulates that the Right to Counsel begins to apply immediately judicial proceedings begins against the defendant, whether by preliminary hearing, information, formal charge, indictment or arraignment. In today’s judicial proceedings, the right to counsel has faced challenges owing to inadequate funding of the public defenders’ office.
The Miranda Warnings entrenched as part of the Fifth Amendment is of great significance. The Supreme Court, in its 1966 ruling of the Miranda v. Arizona case, came up with the following conclusion. Whenever the police capture an accused into their custody, he or she must know the rights to avoid making any self-incriminating testimonies. The key four things stipulated in this warning require that the criminal defendant has the right to remain silent, and anything that he or she utters shall be used against them in a law court. Additionally, the warnings add that the defendant has the right to a legal representative, and if he or she cannot afford one, the state shall provide (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). The key assumptions in a court of law are that any confession made by a suspect in custody without knowing the Miranda warnings is involuntary. Such confessions are irrelevant against the defendant in any criminal case. In today’s legal environment, the Miranda warnings apply to both the juveniles and adults. Juveniles in police custody have the right to obtain the Miranda warnings the same way the adults do. However, the arresting officer in the juvenile’s case should act in good faith, and inform the guardians of the juvenile.
Another important safeguard in the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution is the Right to a Speedy Trial. The right postulates that a defendant has the guarantee of a speedy trial before an impartial jury. The right implies that a defendant must be arraigned in a court of law within a reasonably short time after being put into custody. Additionally, the right gives the suspect the constitutional right to have an impartially selected jury responsible for determining whether the accused is guilty or not (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). No specific timelines are set for the defendant to appear in court. However, a reasonable time is always handled on a case-by-case basis. If the jury finds out that the holdup between arrest and trial is irrational and detrimental to the accused, the case is dismissed altogether. For juveniles, they must be brought for delinquency trial within thirty days after detention or the case is dismissed. However, if the juvenile is transferred to adult prosecution, the speedy trial may cease to apply for juvenile delinquency (US Attorneys, n.d.).
Finally, another safeguard in the Fourth Amendment is the Exclusionary Rule. The rule postulates that the state cannot use evidence obtained while violating a defendant’s right to be used against the defendant in a law court. The defendant can use the rule to suppress physical evidence such as stolen property that the police may seize in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule applies to both adults and juveniles in the same way (US Attorneys, n.d.).
References
Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). Bill of Rights. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights
Hanley, K. T. (1981). Fourth Amendment Protection for the Juvenile Offender - State, Parent, and the Best Interests of the Minor. Fordham Law Review, 49(6), 1140-1160. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=78386
The United States Court. (2014). What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? Retrieved November 24, 2014, from http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/fourth-amendment/fourth-amendment-mean.aspx
US Attorneys. (n.d.). Criminal Resource Manual 121 Constitutional protections afforded juveniles. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00121.htm
