Constitution:
The usual issue for
investigation is whether the action taken against a person violates any
constitutional limitation that protects individual rights.
The most widely used Act
for civil rights violations for victims of racial or religious
discrimination is the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 which
provides that:
Every person who, under
color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any
State or Territory subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of
the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities served by the
Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
The Constitution explicitly
provides protections for individuals against certain actions by the
federal government and certain actions by state governments. Most of
the Bill of Rights has been held applicable to the states through the
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Both the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments protect against the deprivation of "life,
liberty, or property without due process of law."
The First Amendment
provides protection against abridgment of the freedoms of speech, press,
and association. These rights are protected from state abridgment by
the Fourteenth Amendment.
The First Amendment also
forbids the government from making laws that establish religion or
prohibit the free exercise of religion. These provisions apply
to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
SAFEGUARDS IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
-
Right to
Counsel: This is
guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments in criminal
prosecutions that result in imprisonment.
-
Use of
Involuntary Confessions: the
Fifth and fourteenth Amendments prohibit the use of involuntary
confessions. Voluntary confessions may also be inadmissible if
an accused's Miranda rights were violated. *
(see note below)
-
Privilege
Against Self-Incrimination:
This right is guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
Exclusion
of Evidence Obtained by Illegal Searches and Seizures: The
exclusionary rule is based on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
Cruel and
Unusual Punishment:
This is prohibited by the Eighth and fourteenth Amendments and imposes
substantive limits on what can be made criminal, limits the kinds of
punishment, and proscribes punishments that are excessive or grossly
disproportionate to the crime.
-
Right to Trial
by Jury
-
Right to Public
Trial
-
Right to a Fair
Trial
-
Requirement
of Certainty in Criminal Statutes: Vagueness
in criminal statutes renders them invalid. this requirement
prevents arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
* Supreme
Court Upholds Miranda Police Warnings
June 26, 2000 11:52 am EST
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S.
Supreme Court decisively reaffirmed on Monday its legendary Miranda
ruling, which requires police to tell suspects of their right to remain
silent, upholding a precedent from a more liberal era 34 years ago.
In one of its most important criminal
law rulings in decades, the high court by a 7-2 vote refused to discard
its 1966 Miranda decision and replace it with a less-stringent federal
law that allows voluntary confessions even when police fail to give the
warnings.
"We ... hold that Miranda and its
progeny in this court govern the admissibility of statements made during
custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts," Chief
Justice William Rehnquist said for the majority.
The ruling was a major victory for the
Clinton administration and civil libertarians, who said the Miranda
decision prevents police coercion and misconduct after suspects have
been taken into custody for questioning.
Police groups argued unsuccessfully
that the Miranda decision -- requiring that suspects be told about the
right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present -- should be
discarded because it sometimes allows the guilty to go free.
Two years after the Miranda ruling,
Congress adopted a law that allowed federal prosecutors to use a
voluntary confession made before a criminal suspect has been read the
Miranda rights -- a law never enforced by the U.S. Justice Department.
The law, which affects only federal
prosecutions and not state or local criminal cases, essentially
overturned the Miranda decision and restored the voluntary standard that
had been in effect before the 1966 ruling.
But the Supreme Court said the federal
law does not take precedence over its Miranda decision, a ruling that
means the required police warnings remain as the law of the land.
Rehnquist said Miranda was a
constitutional decision of the court, and may not be overruled by an act
of Congress.
He said the court declined to overrule
Miranda on the grounds that it has become so established in law and in
police practice.
But Rehnquist specifically said the
court was leaving open whether it would have agreed with Miranda's
reasoning and its rule if it had been addressing the issue for the first
time.
The ruling involved suspected bank
robber Charles Dickerson, who in January 1997 voluntarily confessed to
FBI agents that he drove the getaway car in a series of bank robberies
in Virginia and Maryland.
A federal trial judge in Alexandria,
Virginia, suppressed Dickerson's confession as evidence, ruling that
Dickerson had not been told of his Miranda rights before the confession.
But a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the
federal law trumped the Miranda decision and governed the admissibility
of confessions in federal court. The Supreme Court then said the appeals
court was wrong.
The Justice Department strongly
defended the Miranda decision. U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno took the
rare step of signing the government's brief urging that the warnings be
retained to promote public confidence in the fairness of the criminal
justice system.
The Miranda decision flowed from the
constitutional right against self incrimination under the Fifth
Amendment.
The case has become a political issue.
Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush welcomed the review of
the Miranda decision while Vice President Al Gore strongly supported the
1966 ruling.
Justices Antonin Scalia, a longtime
Miranda critic, and Clarence Thomas dissented.
"Today's judgement converts
Miranda from a milestone of judicial overreaching into the very Cheops'
pyramid (or perhaps the Sphinx would be a better analog) of judicial
arrogance," Scalia said, referring to the king of Egypt who built
the great pyramids outside Cairo.
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
The
Constitution reflects the ideas both of the rule of law and the principle
of legality. It requires that the law specifically define the
crime and prescribe a penalty. It also includes the expost
facto prohibition against making conduct criminal after it occurs;
the void-for-vagueness doctrine, which requires the law to state with
precision what conduct it prohibits; and equal protection of the
laws. The purpose underlying the principle of legality include
(1) forewarning citizens about the conduct the law proscribes, (2)
protecting against abuse of state power, and (3) ensuring equal treatment
by government.
Let us help you discover
and obtain the facts.
Talk to us for a free
consultation we may save you an enormous amount of money on pre-trial
discovery, investigation inquiries, and evidence acquisition.
It is economically prudent to investigate
your case before litigation. Call for a free consultation at (808)-218-1025.
