How Do the 4th and 5th Amendment Protect against unreasonable law enforcement procedures? Lesson 31.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Chapter 14, Section 3 THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Advertisements

Section 3 Introduction-1

Supreme Court Cases Use your knowledge of the Bill of Rights to determine how the Supreme Court should rule for each case.

The Government must respect ALL legal rights of all people. It must treat people fairly.

Vivek Barbhaiya and John Coriasco

Miranda Rights 5th Amendment

BY: KATIE LOSINIECKI Miranda v. Arizona. Facts Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1966 for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old woman After being interrogated.

Miranda vs. Arizona 1966.

Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional 11 th Edition John N. Ferdico Henry F. Fradella Christopher Totten Prepared by Tony Wolusky Interrogations,

1 Fourth and Fifth Amendments Police State – country where military or law enforcement are in power and abuse power Warrant – document that gives law enforcement.

 The 4 th Amendment limits the powers of government officials to search and seize individuals, their homes, their papers, and other property.  The 5.

Rights of Suspects The Fourth Amendment The Fifth Amendment.

UNIT 5 AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. LESSON PAGES How do the 4 th and 5 th Amendments protect against unreasonable law enforcement procedures? Objective:

Winning, until proven guilty …. Searches and Seizures The Fourth Amendment protects from unreasonable searches and seizures Searches must be conducted.

Unit Five Lesson 31 How do the Fourth and Fifth Amendments Protect Against Unreasonable Law Enforcement Procedures.

1 Chapter 12 Obtaining Statements and Confessions for use as Evidence Obtaining Statements and Confessions for use as Evidence.

Call to Order These three officers were accused of taking two Baltimore teens out to the county, taking their shoes and cellphone batteries, and leaving.

Chapter Fifteen Criminal Procedure Before Trial. Introduction to Law, 4 th Edition Hames and Ekern © 2010 Pearson Higher Education, Upper Saddle River,

Law & Justice Chapter 12 Criminal Investigations.

Rights of the Accused Search & Seizure Search & Seizure Right Against Self Incrimination Right Against Self Incrimination Right to Counsel Right to Counsel.

Crime and Due Process. There is always a question as to how we should deal with “improper evidence” in the courtroom; different nations approach the question.

 Most cases are handled by state courts  Arrest: When a person suspected of a crime is taken into custody Arrest warrant v. probable cause  A judge.

Criminal Justice Process: The Investigation Mrs. Gurzler.

The Investigation.  Right to remain silent  Right to an attorney  No interrogation should take place before they read  Are a result of the US Supreme.

*Most cases are handled by state courts Analyze Figure 12.1 on page 127 to see an overview of the entire criminal justice process.

 Online Miranda quiz Online Miranda quiz. The constitutional implications of custodial interrogation.

Essential Questions: What rights are guaranteed to all Americans who are accused of crimes?

Legal Studies * Mr. Marinello ARRESTS AND WARRANTS.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS: THE INVESTIGATION Chapter 12.

The Warren Court and judicial activism “The biggest damn fool mistake I ever made”, Dwight D. Eisenhower on Earl Warren, quoted in 1977 Chief Justice,

4 th, 5 th,6 th, 8 th, and 14 th Amendments (Due Process) Due Process of Law – This clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is there to prevent the.

DUE PROCESS. Procedural Due Process v. Substantive Due Process Procedural follows a set procedure, the same for all the accused Such as counsel, unreasonable.

D UE P ROCESS OF L AW Part 7. D UE P ROCESS 5 th Amendment “Federal Government cannot deprive any person of Life, Liberty or property, without due process.

Unit 4 Seminar. Tell me what the Miranda warning is and what it means to you.

The American Legal System

Entry Into the System Arrests and Miranda.

Miranda v. Arizona.

Lesson 31: How Do the Fourth and Fifth Amendments Protect Against Unreasonable Law Enforcement Procedures?

The Bill of Rights The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution

5th amendment By: Evany Flores 9.5.

Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual rights

The University of Adelaide, School of Computer Science

Aim: What are the protections offered by the case of Miranda vs

By Michael Cleary Period 8 10/3/13 College Business Law Mr. Como

Criminal Justice U.S. Constitution Unit Hermitage Tech Center

Entry Into the System Arrests and Miranda.

Pre-trial arrest and custody

Miranda v. Arizona 1966.

Lesson 5-2 Criminal Procedure.

Miranda v. Arizona 5th Amendment

Words to Know Reasonable Suspicion Search and Seizure Probable Cause

Chapter 20: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Section 3

Rights of the Accused Summary.

Criminal Law Defenses Lesson 5-2 Quiz Review.

Journal #2 When is it appropriate for an official to investigate any of your personal belongings? (Car, phone, bag, physical person?) Give an example.

Ch. 3-2 The Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent

Reasons why the Constitution has been amended

The 5th and 14th Amendments

Miranda Rights You have the right to remain silent…

AMENDMENTS U.S. Bill Of Rights.

Section 5: Knowing Your Rights

Search & Seizure in Schools:

Rights of the Accused Part 1

Miranda v. Arizona Matthew & Noah.

Constitutional Rights: Protections and Limitations

AMENDMENTS U.S. Bill Of Rights.

4th Amendment Protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures (capture of items) A POLICE OFFICER MUST HAVE A warrant given to him by a.

Lesson 01 Aim: What is Criminal Justice? Do Now: What do you think of when you hear the word CRIME?

Presentation transcript:

How Do the 4th and 5th Amendment Protect against unreasonable law enforcement procedures? Lesson 31

What is the purpose of the 4th Amendment? NOTE: To change images on this slide, select a picture and delete it. Then click the Insert Picture icon in the placeholder to insert your own image. What is the purpose of the 4th Amendment? The Supreme Court has held that warrants are never required in certain circumstances – schools. Schools are “guardians” of the students…not law enforcement officers. When are searches reasonable? *Specific facts together with rational inferences from those facts justified the intrusion. *The search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying it. Safety and health are primary considerations used for determining whether a search is a reasonable… *Random drug testing of public and transportation employees and students who participate in extracurricular activities in public schools Searches of homes of people on probation

Some witnesses are given immunity. NOTE: To change images on this slide, select a picture and delete it. Then click the Insert Picture icon in the placeholder to insert your own image. What is the purpose of the 5th Amendment provision against self-incrimination? Self-incrimination: testifying in court of law, where the things you say my incriminate or implicate you in a crime. Some witnesses are given immunity. The burden of proof belongs to the government. It does not belong to the defendant. They should not be forced to reveal incriminating facts.

Protection from self incrimination applies to any public proceeding * Protection from self incrimination applies to any public proceeding. * 1950’s House Committee on Un-American Activities asked for information about links to the Communist Party. * Some people pleaded “the fifth” * Unless someone has a special privilege such as a doctor– they cannot avoid testifying to incriminate another person.

Miranda Rule Police cannot violate the Miranda Rule. *Comes out of Miranda v. Arizona 1. Right to remain silent 2. Anything they say can and will be used in a court of law. 3. Right to an attorney 4. If an attorney cannot be afforded, one will be provided for them. 5. Can end police questioning at any time Some argue that Miranda interferes with the state process of fighting crime/police power 1968Congress attempted to overturn the decision by passing a statue that said voluntary confessions were admissible at trial. However, 2000 Supreme Court ruled it was a Constitutional decision and could not be over ruled by an act of Congress.