Sixth Amendment and Amendment

Fourth Amendment to the Constitution covers the protection of the individual from unlawful searches and seizures when in the privacy of their own home. Because of the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officers are required to secure an official court order or warrant to search the premises, and that warrant must be based on probable cause.

Although the Fourth Amendment does protect against the intrusion onto private property, there are several exceptions to the Fourth Amendment in which law enforcement is given leeway and greater degrees of power over the individual. Courts have also ruled increasingly in favor of the rights of law enforcement officers to infringe upon Fourth Amendment rights in specific situations, as with "stop and frisk" scenarios in which probable cause can be loosely defined and based on subjective police impressions of suspicious behavior ("Valid Searches and Seizures Without Warrants," n.d.). Another exception to Fourth Amendment rights relates to the "reasonable expectation" of privacy; if there is no "reasonable" expectation of privacy, then law enforcement can use search and seizure methods with probable cause -- again loosely defined (Cornell University Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Beginning with Carroll v. United States, the courts have also consistently ruled that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in one's personal vehicle. Law enforcement officers can search private automobiles and seize property if there was probable cause to do so. The probable cause to search a motor vehicle may be unrelated to the items or contraband that was actually found. For example, officers can pull over a vehicle for a traffic violation and if the officer reasonably suspects that contraband is present, then a warrantless search can be conducted ("Valid Searches and Seizures Without Warrants," n.d.).

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution covers several issues including the use of grand juries for capital crimes, the protection against double jeopardy or being tried for the same crime twice, a guarantee to a fair trial, and the protection against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment also covers a more obscure issue of when the federal government seizes private property for public use. In such situations, the federal government is required under the provisions of the Fifth Amendment to provide "just compensation." In other words, if property is seized, the government must pay full market value for the property.

The Fifth Amendment comprises some of the most important checks on police power, while also protecting the individual from unfair legal proceedings. In criminal proceedings, the Fifth Amendment assures the right of the individual to refuse to self-incriminate. "Taking the Fifth" refers to the individual's Constitutionally protected right to avoid testifying against himself or herself in a court of law, even in a civil proceeding (Portman, n.d.).

Likewise, the Fifth Amendment prevents the state from retrying a person for the same crime twice. The Double Jeopardy rule applies to individuals who were acquitted or convicted, and also ensures that a person cannot receive more than one punishment for the same crime (Cornell University Legal Information Institute, n.d.). The provisions of the Fifth Amendment are applicable to both federal and state cases because of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The most famous implication of the Fifth Amendment was clarified in Miranda v. Arizona, the landmark Supreme Court case that gave the Miranda Rights their name. In Miranda, the court ruled that based on Fifth Amendment rights, law enforcement must clarify and detail the suspect's rights including the right to remain silent when under interrogation (the right to "plead the Fifth"), the right to have an attorney present during questioning (which is covered in greater detail in the Sixth Amendment), and the right to a state-appointed attorney for the indigent, also covered in the Sixth Amendment.

Sixth Amendment

The Sixth Amendment covers some of the most important rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a speedy trial, the right to an attorney, the right to know the evidence, and the right to an impartial jury. The right to an attorney is actually constrained by the provisions outlined in Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 106 S. Ct. 477, 88 L. Ed. 2d 481 [1985]), in which the courts determined that the Sixth Amendment only guarantees a defendant access to legal counsel at "critical stages" of criminal proceedings ("Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel," n.d.). Jury selection, trial, and sentencing are "critical stages," as are pretrial hearings ("Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel," n.d.).

The right to an attorney is also limited to felony cases or cases in which the penalty involves prison time. In other words, a defendant on trial for any crime that does not involve the possibility of incarceration is not necessarily guaranteed state-appointed, state-funded legal counsel ("Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel," n.d.). The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the defendant the right to choose a particular state-appointed attorney. However, the courts do uphold the right of defendants to substitute a state-appointed attorney in situations where there is a conflict of interest, other ethical violation, a breakdown of communication, or any other "compelling reason," ("Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel," n.d.).

Fourteenth Amendment