THE FIFTH AMENDMENT<\/p>\n
Constitutional Law<\/p>\n
The Right Against Self-Incrimination and Due Process<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 The 5th amendment says: \uf0a7 \u201cNo person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.\u201d<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 \u201cNo person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.\u201d<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Malloy v. Hogan (1964) \uf0a7 Made the due process clause applicable to the states.<\/p>\n
Hiibel v. Nevada , 59 P.2d 1201 (2004)<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Facts: Larry Hiibel was arrested and convicted in Nevada state court for failing to identify himself to a police officer who was investigating an assault.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Issue: Did Hiibel’s arrest and conviction for not telling a police officer his name violate his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search?<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Holding: No.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Rationale: The officer\u2019s investigation did not violate the Fifth Amendment because Hiibel never argued that telling the officer his name would incriminate him of any crime.<\/p>\n
Hiibel v. Nevada , 59 P.2d 1201 (2004)<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Facts: Larry Hiibel was arrested and convicted in Nevada state court for failing to identify himself to a police officer who was investigating an assault.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Issue: Did Hiibel’s arrest and conviction for not telling a police officer his name violate his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search?<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Holding: No.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Rationale: The officer\u2019s investigation did not violate the Fifth Amendment because Hiibel never argued that telling the officer his name would incriminate him of any crime.<\/p>\n
Due Process<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Provides rules and procedures to ensure fairness to an individual and to prevent arbitrary government actions.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Procedural and substantive due process work to ensure to everyone the fairness of the law under the Constitution.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Police actions that are extreme have been found to violate due process.<\/p>\n
Rochin v. California , 342 U.S. 165 (1952)<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Facts: Rochin swallowed drug capsules to dispose of evidence. The police took him to a hospital where a doctor was instructed by the police officers to administer an emetic by forcibly passing a tube into Rochin’s stomach. He vomited the capsules and was convicted on the basis of the evidence produced from his vomit.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Issues: Did the police forcing Rochin to vomit violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Holding: Yes.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Rationale: Due process was an admittedly vague concept, but it prohibited “conduct that shocks the conscience.”<\/p>\n
The 5th Amendment and Confessions<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 When will a confession be admissible as evidence in court?<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Early common law permitted confessions to be obtained by any manner, including force or threat of force.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 The reliability of such admissions is to be questioned.<\/p>\n
Voluntariness of Confessions<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 The exclusionary rule prohibits use of confessions obtained in violation of a person\u2019s constitutional rights and those otherwise coerced and are inherently unreliable.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 To demonstrate that a confession was voluntary, many police departments will tape- or video record interrogations.<\/p>\n
Brown v. Mississippi , 297 U.S. 278 (1936)<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Facts: Two individuals were convicted of murder, the only evidence of which was their own confessions that were procured after violent interrogation including whippings.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Issues: Can a confession be used as evidence if extracted after police violence?<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Holding: No.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Rationale: In the first confession case decided by the Supreme Court, a defendant\u2019s confession, when extracted through police violence, cannot be entered as violence for the process to acquire such an admission violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.<\/p>\n
Voluntariness of Confessions<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 The Courts have identified two factors in assessing the voluntariness of a confession: 1. The police conduct involved. 2. The characteristics of the accused.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 If it has not been coerced, then the confession is presumed to have been voluntary.<\/p>\n
Police Conduct<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 What are some conduct that violates due process? \uf0a7 Threats of violence<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Interrogation after lengthy, unnecessary delays in obtaining a statement between arrest and presentment before a neutral magistrate<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Deprivations of food, drink and sleep<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 What are examples of police action that do NOT violate due process? \uf0a7 Promises of leniency<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Appeal to religious beliefs<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Trickery and deceit<\/p>\n
Characteristics of the Accused<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Factors such as the defendant\u2019s: \uf0a7 Age<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Education<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Intelligence level<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Mental illness<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Physical condition<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Will all be considered in determining whether a confession was voluntary.<\/p>\n
A Standard for Voluntariness<\/p>\n
Totality of circumstances test. \uf0a7 Was the admission truly voluntary?<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Were the individual\u2019s constitutional guarantees protected?<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Was the good of the people balanced with the government\u2019s and the accused’s freedoms?<\/p>\n
Escobedo v. Illinois , 378 U.S. 478 (1964)<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Facts: Over several hours, the police refused Escobedo\u2019s repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo’s lawyer sought unsuccessfully to consult with his client. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Issues: If a suspect has been taken into police custody and interrogated by police without their request to see an attorney being honored, nor being advised of their right to remain silent, have they been denied effective Helpance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment?<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Holding: Yes.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Rationale: When the process shifts from investigatory to accusatory, the accused must be permitted to consult with his\/her lawyer.<\/p>\n
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Miranda was a poor 23-year-old with a 9th grade education who signed a written confession.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Legal issue: Does a defendant need to be informed of rights?<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Miranda also changed the analysis of the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination from a totality of the circumstances for voluntariness to whether those subjected to a custodial interrogation by police were advised of their rights.<\/p>\n
The Miranda Warning<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 This decision actually directs police officers on what to say to individuals that are in custody before questioning them.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 The Constitution requires that I inform you that: \uf0a7 You have the right to remain silent.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Anything you say can and will be used against you in court.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 You have the right to talk to a lawyer now and have him present now or at any time during questioning.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost.<\/p>\n
When the Miranda Warning Must be Given<\/p>\n
\uf0a7Custodial interrogation<\/p>\n
\uf0a7When in doubt, the officer should advise the person of their rights. \uf0a7 Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspect to it which may cause the suspect to be charged with a crime.<\/p>\n
Waiving the Rights<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Waiver \uf0a7 A purposeful and voluntary giving up of a known right.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Suspects must know and understand their constitutional rights to legally waive them.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Suspects may revoke the waiver at any point in the interrogation.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Silence is not a waiver.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 To waive their rights, they must state orally or in writing 1. They understand their rights. 2. They will voluntarily answer questions without a lawyer present.<\/p>\n
The Public Safety Exception<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 An important exception to the Miranda requirement involves public safety.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Allows police to question suspects without first giving the Miranda warning if the information sought sufficiently affects the officer\u2019s and the public\u2019s safety<\/p>\n
New York v. Quarles , 467 U.S. 649 (1984)<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Facts: After receiving the description of Quarles, an alleged assailant, a police officer entered a supermarket, spotted him, and ordered him to stop. Quarles stopped and was frisked by the officer. Upon detecting an empty shoulder holster, the officer asked Quarles where his gun was. Quarles responded. The officer then formally arrested Quarles and read him his Miranda rights.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Issues: Should the Court suppress Quarles’s statement about the gun and the gun itself because the officer had failed at the time to read Quarles his Miranda rights?<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Holding: No.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Rationale: The Court held that there is a “public safety” exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects.<\/p>\n
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 The doctrine prohibits the use of secondary evidence in trial that directly stemmed from primary evidence derived from any illegal search and seizure.<\/p>\n
Other Rights Guaranteed by the 5th Amendment<\/p>\n
\uf0a7Right to a grand jury indictment.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7Prohibition against double jeopardy.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7Right to receive just compensation when government takes private property.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION<\/p>\n
Law of the Constitution<\/p>\n
Due Process and the Right Against Self-Incrimination<\/p>\n
“No person shall be compelled to be a witness against oneself in any criminal case,” the 5th amendment states.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 \u201cNo person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.\u201d<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Malloy v. Hogan (1964) \uf0a7 Made the due process clause applicable to the states.<\/p>\n
Hiibel v. Nevada , 59 P.2d 1201 (2004)<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Facts: Larry Hiibel was arrested and convicted in Nevada state court for failing to identify himself to a police officer who was investigating an assault.<\/p>\n
\uf0a7 Issue: Did Hiibel’s arrest and conviction for not telling a police officer his name violate his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT Constitutional Law The Right Against Self-Incrimination and Due Process \uf0a7 The 5th amendment says: \uf0a7 \u201cNo person shall be compelled in any\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7643,7642,7645,7644],"tags":[7678,8989,8988,7387,633,8991,630,8987,8994,8467,15,8990,7656,7571,8993,66,8992],"class_list":["post-104259","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-custom-same-day-essays","category-custom-writings-writers","category-do-my-essay-mla-format","category-write-my-paper-hub-writers","tag-best-custom-paper-writing-service","tag-best-online-paper-writing-service","tag-best-paper-writing-service","tag-best-research-paper-writing-services","tag-cheap-research-paper-writing-service","tag-cheapest-paper-writing-service","tag-college-paper-writing-service","tag-free-paper-writing-service","tag-free-term-paper-writing-service","tag-paper-writing-service","tag-paper-writing-service-reddit","tag-professional-paper-writing-service","tag-someone-to-write-my-paper","tag-websites-that-write-papers-for-you","tag-what-is-the-best-paper-writing-service","tag-write-my-paper","tag-write-my-paper-for-me-free"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104259","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=104259"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104259\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104259"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104259"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104259"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}