1. The Rights of Criminal Defendants
4.5
The Rights of Criminal Defendants
The Fourth Amendment and Searches and Seizures
The Fifth Amendment: Self-Incrimination and Double Jeopardy
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Exclusionary Rule
Multiple amendments to the Constitution provide protection for those who have been accused of a crime. Several clauses in the Bill of Rights protect people who are accused of a crime by preventing individuals from being mistreated by overzealous law enforcement officials.
Writs of habeas corpus require law enforcement officials to provide proof that an individual is being held lawfully. Ex post facto laws, which are laws that make an act punishable even if the act was legal when it was committed, are prohibited. Bills of attainder, which punish persons or groups for crimes without the benefit of a trial, are also prohibited. This section will discuss the protections provided by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments.

2. Rights of Criminal Defendants
4.5
Rights of Criminal Defendants
The Sixth Amendment and the Right to Counsel
The Sixth Amendment and Jury Trials
The Eighth Amendment and Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Multiple amendments to the Constitution provide protection for those who have been accused of a crime. Several clauses in the Bill of Rights protect people who are accused of a crime by preventing individuals from being mistreated by overzealous law enforcement officials.
Writs of habeas corpus require law enforcement officials to provide proof that an individual is being held lawfully. Ex post facto laws, which are laws that make an act punishable even if the act was legal when it was committed, are prohibited. Bills of attainder, which punish persons or groups for crimes without the benefit of a trial, are also prohibited. This section will discuss the protections provided by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments.

3. The Fourth Amendment and Searches and Seizures
4.5
The Fourth Amendment and Searches and Seizures
Protection from unreasonable searches
Warrants
Probable cause
The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Police must have warrants to search homes and to obtain the warrants they must have have probable cause—that is, they must have enough information suggesting that a crime has taken place and that an individual or location is linked to the crime.
As with many civil liberties, there are exceptions to the rule. Law enforcement officials do have the right to search an individual's pockets, purse, or car as long as what they obtain was within the view or reach of the individual at the time of the arrest.

4. The Fifth Amendment : Self-Incrimination and Double Jeopardy
4.5
The Fifth Amendment : Self-Incrimination and Double Jeopardy
Protection against self-incrimination
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Right to remain silent
Knowledge that what you say can be used against you
Right to an attorney present during questioning
Right to have an attorney provided if you cannot afford one
Double jeopardy
The Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If you are accused of a crime, you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. You are innocent until the state proves that you are guilty, and you don't have to help the prosecution prove their case against you.
It is possible, indeed likely, that someone who is arrested may say something incriminating under interrogation, without being aware of their constitutional rights to remain silent, to have an attorney present during questioning, and to be provided with an attorney if they cannot afford one. In the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that arresting officers must inform accused persons of these rights.
In addition to the previously mentioned protections, someone cannot be tried twice for the same crime. This is known as double jeopardy.

5. 4.5
Why was Ernesto Miranda important to the development of defendants' rights?
Even though Ernesto Miranda's confession was not admitted as evidence at his retrial, the testimony of his ex-girlfriend and the victim was enough to convince the jury of his guilt. He served nine years in prison before he was paroled. After his release, he routinely sold autographed cards inscribed with what are called the Miranda rights now read to all suspects. In 1976, four years after his release, Miranda was stabbed to death during a card game. Two Miranda cards were found on his body, and the person who killed him was read his Miranda rights upon his arrest.
AP Images

6. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Exclusionary Rule
4.5
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Exclusionary Rule
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Exceptions to the exclusionary rule
'Good faith' mistakes
The exclusionary rule bars the use of illegally obtained evidence. It was extended to the states in the 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio, making such evidence inadmissible in state courts.
But the courts have recently upheld many exceptions, such as when the evidence could have been obtained by legal means or the police did not realize the seizure was improper. There is widespread public support for preventing criminals from going free on a technicality. The Court has ruled in favor of some good faith exceptions if law enforcement officials believed that the search they were conducting was legal.

7. The Sixth Amendment and Right to Counsel
4.5
The Sixth Amendment and
Right to Counsel
Sixth Amendment right to attorney
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
State must provide attorney for indigent
Right to counsel begins with first appearance before a judge
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel in federal courts. But most trials happen in state courts and most defendants cannot afford an attorney. It was not until 1932 that this right was incorporated, and the state required to pay for an attorney for the indigent, and then only for capital crimes. In 1963, in the famous case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the Court extended this right to anyone accused of a felony, and subsequent rulings have extended it to crimes in which imprisonment could be imposed.
In 2008, the Court ruled that the right to counsel began at the time of the individual's first appearance before a judge.

8. The Sixth Amendment and Jury Trials
4.5
The Sixth Amendment and Jury Trials
Speedy and public trial by impartial jury
Right to confront witnesses
Jury of peers
Racial peers
Gender
When cases do go to trial, defendants have the right to an impartial jury that is not racially biased.
Defendants also have the right to confront witnesses to prevent false testimony and to be informed of evidence that may exonerate them.
In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that Hispanics were entitled to a jury trial that included Hispanic peers. Gender discrimination was often a question, especially concerning cases regarding rape and murder. Ultimately, the Court determined that the equal protection clause prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender.

9. The Eighth Amendment and Cruel and Unusual Punishment
4.5
The Eighth Amendment and Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Cruel and unusual punishment not defined
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Protecting the wrongfully convicted
The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment but it does not define it. It is up to the sensibilities of the age. The Court has not ruled that the death penalty is in itself cruel and unusual punishment, but has upheld restrictions on its use.
In Furman v. Georgia, the Court ruled that because the death penalty had been unfairly applied to African Americans, it was cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Court later ruled that the death penalty was not unconstitutional unless it could be proved that racial discrimination applied to the particular case.
In recent cases, the Court has upheld the use of lethal injection as a method of execution, and made it more difficult for death row inmates to appeal their sentences.
Public support for the death penalty is high in the U.S., but advances in DNA technology that demonstrate that innocent people have been executed may cause that support to wane.

10. 4.5 How do states vary in their application of the death penalty?
This cartoon offers a social commentary on the frequent administration of the death penalty in Texas, which leads the nation in the number of executions. The state of Texas has accounted for one-third of the nation's executions since 1976, a fact that is particularly remarkable after considering that the death penalty is illegal in 16 states and rarely used in many others.
Nick Anderson. Cartoonist Group. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved

11. 4.5 Because of the ____, lawyers
cannot select jurors on the basis of gender.
Fifth Amendment
Civil Rights Act of 1964
role of political correctness
equal protection clause
We've discussed protections afforded to the accused, including the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. What completes this sentence?

12. 4.5 Because of the ____, lawyers
cannot select jurors on the basis of gender.
Fifth Amendment
Civil Rights Act of 1964
role of political correctness
equal protection clause
The Court ruled that the equal protection clause prohibits jury selection on the basis of gender. Lawyers cannot exclude male or female jurors whom they think might not be sympathetic to their case.

13. Right to Privacy 4.6 Birth Control and Contraceptives Abortion
Homosexuality
While the Constitution does not specifically outline the right to privacy, it was acknowledged as early as 1928 by Justice Louis Brandeis, who explained that privacy is 'the right to be left alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.' In this section, we will discuss privacy in terms of reproductive rights and sexual rights.

14. Birth Control and Contraceptives
4.6
Birth Control and Contraceptives
Right of women to obtain contraceptives
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Until the 1960s, contraceptives were often restricted in states. In many states they could not be sold to minors, if at all. Connecticut banned the sale of all forms of birth control and prohibited doctors from discussing contraceptives with married women.
Griswold v. Connecticut concerned a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of birth control by married couples. The Court argued that the rights in the Constitution implied a right to privacy that extended to the behavior of married couples in the privacy of their bedroom. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Connecticut state law was unconstitutional and later expanded the right to privacy to include the right of unmarried individuals to have access to contraceptives.

15. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)?
4.6
What was the outcome of
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)?
In this photo, Estelle Griswold (left), executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Cornelia Jahncke, its president, celebrate the Supreme Court's ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Griswold invalidated a Connecticut law that made selling contraceptives or disseminating information about contraception to married couples illegal.
Bettmann/Corbis

16. Abortion 4.6 Roe v. Wade Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Prohibits state bans on abortion
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Restrictions cannot place undue burden on woman.
One of the most famous and controversial cases in Supreme Court history concerns the application of the implied right to privacy to the issue of abortion. In 1973, in the case of Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that the right to privacy protects a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy but that this right is not absolute.
Following the result of Roe v. Wade several state legislatures and city councils sought to counteract the Court's decision. They enacted statutes and ordinances to make obtaining abortions more difficult by specifying expensive medical procedures and other matters during the second trimester.
In 1992, in its decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court made it easier for states to place restrictions on abortion services by stating that such restrictions could not place an "undue burden" on a woman seeking an abortion in order to pass constitutional muster. What states consider to be an "undue burden" varies widely.

17. Homosexuality 4.6 Right to privacy extends to private sexual behavior
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Griswold v. Connecticut determined that married couples have the right to privacy regarding their personal lives. This right was extended to private sexual relations between men in Lawrence v. Texas.

18. Which case led to greater discussion of gay rights issues?
4.6
Which case led to greater discussion of gay rights issues?
Tyron Garner (left) and John Geddes Lawrence (center), the plaintiffs in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), are shown here with their attorney. The ruling in this case proved to be a huge victory for advocates of gay and lesbian rights, as it deemed anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional. Following this decision, states began to debate laws related to marriage and other rights for same-sex couples.
David J. Phillip/AP Images

19. 4.6 What was the decision in
Griswold v. Connecticut based on?
Right to privacy
Right to information about family planning
Right to abortion
Right to sexual conduct
Do you recall what this case established? Please answer this brief question before we continue.

20. 4.6 What was the decision in
Griswold v. Connecticut based on?
Right to privacy
Right to information about family planning
Right to abortion
Right to sexual conduct
The Court decided that laws banning contraceptives and information about birth control were protected by the right to privacy. Although the Constitution does not explicitly state this right, there are enough protections in the amendments to suggest that individuals have rights that extend to privacy and "the right to be left alone."

21. Toward Reform: Civil Liberties and Combating Terrorism
4.7
Toward Reform: Civil Liberties and Combating Terrorism
The First Amendment
The Fourth Amendment
Due Process Rights
Historically, there have been situations in which civil liberties have been suspended, particularly during wartime. This was also the case following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The government temporarily suspended many civil liberties through the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and subsequent secret memos from the Department of Justice.

22. The First Amendment 4.7 USA PATRIOT Act Limits on freedom of speech
Constraints on media
The USA PATRIOT Act, as well as the Military Commissions Act, contain varying degrees of civil liberty infringements.
The USA PATRIOT Act violates the First Amendment right of freedom of speech by barring citizens from telling others that they have been subjected to search orders. The FBI can investigate people who exercise their freedom of speech, without needing to demonstrate that such speech is considered illegal.
The media was under strong constraints to report only positive aspects of the Bush administration's efforts to combat terrorism.
Freedom of religion was ignored in the treatment of detainees in Iraq, when Muslims were subjected to acts that violated their religion.

23. 4.7
The Fourth Amendment
The USA PATRIOT Act and impact on illegal search and seizure
Private records
Search of private property
Collection of foreign intelligence
Information about who is sending and receiving communications
The USA PATRIOT Act infringes upon Fourth Amendment rights in four areas. First, it enables the government to obtain and examine an individual's private records that are held by a third party, including libraries, doctors, and universities.
Government officials can search an individual's property without first notifying the individual.
Third, according to the ACLU the Act "expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information."
Government can trace not just the contents of communication between individuals, but collect information about who is sending and receiving the information.
Activity: Review with your class the current status and provisions of the Patriot Act. An online text can be found at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html). Debate the limits of civil liberties in a post- 9/11 world. Are certain tradeoffs between liberty and security necessary?

24. Due Process Rights 4.7 Reduced rights of habeas corpus
Detention facilities
Right to trial by jury
Cruel and unusual punishment
Illegal incarceration and torture are federal crimes, and individuals have the right to habeas corpus, or to know why they are being detained. However, in 2006, the Bush Administration argued otherwise under the Military Commissions Act and eliminated the right to challenge 'detention, transfer, treatment, trial or conditions of confinement' of detainees. The detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay have sparked intense debate and may violate human rights.
Detainees have been denied the right to trial by jury and access to evidence against them. Legal counsel is limited.
Detainees have also been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

25. 4.7 What are living arrangements like for detainees?
Prisoners of the war on terrorism live in maximum-security prisons where their civil liberties are often compromised. Here, military police escort a detainee to his cell at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp.
Shane T. McCoy/Department of Defense/HO/Reuters

26. 4.7 Which rights have been affected
by the USA PATRIOT Act and the
Military Commissions Act?
The right to trial by jury
The protection from illegal search and seizure
The right to obtain legal counsel
All of the above
Let's test your understanding of topics we have discussed in this section.

27. 4.7 Which rights have been affected
by the USA PATRIOT Act and the
Military Commissions Act?
The right to trial by jury
The protection from illegal search and seizure
The right to obtain legal counsel
All of the above
These measures have compromised many constitutional guarantees. Supporters say they are needed to protect national security.

28. 4
Discussion Questions
Overall, have the Court's rulings on civil liberties strengthened citizens' rights or weakened them in favor of government restrictions?
Are there any notable trends over time?

29. 4 Further Review Listen to the Chapter Study and Review the Flashcards
Study and Review the Practice Tests