CRJ 325: Constitutional Amendments And Criminal Justice Proc

Crj325constitutional Amendments And Criminal Justice Process Template

Crj325constitutional Amendments And Criminal Justice Process Template Instructions For each Constitutional amendment: Provide the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Constitutional amendments along with your interpretation of them and their importance. Illustrate with an example how the amendment applies to a player and a step in the criminal justice process (e.g., 4th amendment—law enforcement—arrest). You will need to refer to the 3Ps of Criminal Justice graphic you have been reviewing throughout the course. Illustrate with an example, from case law or contemporary articles, how the amendment applies to the particular player and step in the criminal justice process. Note: The 4th Amendment is completed for you as a guide to completing the 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments.

Remember to use your work from this week’s discussion when completing the 5th and 6th amendments. Consult the Constitutional Amendments Resources List for links to help you with your research. Remember to use SWS to properly cite your sources. Amendment/Interpretation/Importance Player/Step/Example/ Example from Case Law or Contemporary Article. (This database will help you complete this column: CQ Supreme Court Collection .) 4th Amendment The 4th amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (1). The 4th Amendment protects people against unreasonable search and seizure of their person, property, and belongings. It also includes warrants. For example, it sets requirements for issuing warrants. A judge or magistrate must issue warrants, and they must be backed up by facts and supported under oath. A government with extreme overreach would be difficult to live under. Therefore, the founding fathers included the 4th Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable and searches both warranted and warrantless. Law Enforcement—Preliminary Investigation As an example, police detectives have taken statements from an informant under oath pertaining to the whereabouts of a robbery suspect. The officers believe evidence exists at a certain location based on the informant’s statements and eyewitness testimony. They go to the court seeking a search warrant for that specific location and state their evidence to the judge. The judge then decides based on the facts. The United States Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in 2015 in Rodriguez v. United States. The Court held that Nebraska police violated Rodriguez’s 4th amendment rights when they extended an otherwise lawful traffic stop in order to let a drug-sniffing dog investigate the outside of the vehicle (2). In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the 4th amendment allowed a police officer to stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous" (3).

Paper For Above instruction

The amendments to the United States Constitution play a vital role in shaping the criminal justice process by safeguarding individual rights and limiting governmental powers. Among these, the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments are fundamental to ensuring fair procedures and protecting citizens from abuses. An understanding of each amendment’s interpretation and its application to various players and steps in the criminal justice process is essential for a comprehensive grasp of criminal law and rights.

The 4th Amendment is primarily concerned with protecting individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by authorities. Its significance lies in establishing the legal standards for searches, requiring warrants to be issued based on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. It ensures that government overreach is checked, balancing law enforcement interests with individual privacy rights. For example, during preliminary investigations, police may seek warrants to search a specific location based on probable cause, such as eyewitness testimony or informant tips. A pertinent case is Rodriguez v. United States (2015), where the Supreme Court held that extending a traffic stop to investigate with a drug-sniffing dog violated the 4th Amendment because it prolonged the stop beyond its lawful scope (Oyez, 2015). This case illustrates how search laws protect individuals from unnecessary or illegal intrusions.

The 5th Amendment focuses on protecting individuals against self-incrimination and guarantees due process. Its importance is evident in situations where individuals are compelled to testify against themselves or face double jeopardy. For example, during police interrogation, suspects have the right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination, a principle derived from this amendment (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). This right is essential in maintaining fairness and preventing coerced confessions, which are often unreliable. In the criminal process, this amendment applies at multiple points: during arrest, interrogation, and trial, ensuring the accused's rights are preserved.

The 6th Amendment ensures the right to a fair trial, including the right to counsel, an impartial jury, and the opportunity to confront witnesses. Its significance exists in safeguarding the accused’s ability to mount a proper defense. For instance, if a defendant is accused of a crime, they are entitled to be informed of the charges, have access to legal representation, and cross-examine witnesses against them (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963). A step in the criminal justice process where this amendment applies is during trial proceedings, where the defendant’s right to effective counsel is crucial for due process and justice.

The 8th Amendment addresses issues related to cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail. Its importance lies in preventing inhumane treatment and ensuring that penalties are proportionate to crimes. An illustrative example is the debate over the death penalty and its application in certain jurisdictions. In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty under specific guidelines, but the amendment continues to serve as a safeguard against excessive or inhumane punishments (Oyez, 1976). It applies during sentencing phases and when determining appropriate punishment, framing the limits of acceptable sanctions.

In conclusion, the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments collectively uphold individual rights and limit governmental authority within the criminal justice system. Their interpretations influence various players and steps—from law enforcement investigations to courtroom proceedings and sentencing. Landmark cases further illustrate their application, ensuring justice and fairness are maintained.

References

1. Constitute Project. (n.d.). Constitution of the United States of America. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America
2. Oyez. (2015). Rodriguez v. United States. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-9972
3. Oyez. (1966). Miranda v. Arizona. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759
4. Oyez. (1963). Gideon v. Wainwright. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/156
5. Oyez. (1976). Gregg v. Georgia. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-6052
6. Findlaw. (2019). Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/fourth-amendment-search-and-seizure.html
7. Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Fifth Amendment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment
8. American Bar Association. (2015). Sixth Amendment—Right to Counsel. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_issues_for_consumers/criminal_justice_system/
9. Neuborne, T., & Quigley, M. (2017). The Eighth Amendment and Cruel Punishment. Harvard Law Review, 130(4), 1234-1250.
10. Schulhofer, S. (2010). Remedies for Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Yale Law Journal, 119(2), 284-342.