Browse through the curated selection of our completed assessments to get a sense of the quality and depth of our work. Whether you need guidance, inspiration, or just want to evaluate our work, this page is your go-to resource.
A historic groundbreaking court case that was heard by the Supreme Court was Miranda v. Arizona. This case is about a migrant, Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested at his house for kidnapping and rape. A witness who had recognized and identified Ernesto Miranda, thus causing his arrest and while in custody he was interrogated by detectives, police officers, and prosecutor’s office for a few hours. In which time he gave authorities a signed confession even though he was not advised of his legal rights. On his signed confession there was a disclaimer that stated “Ernesto had full knowledge and understanding of his legal rights and that Ernesto waived his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent (US Supreme Court Briefs – FindLaw, n.d.).
During this time, there were four other cases that dealt with the same circumstances as Ernesto, where individuals have been interrogated, given a confession but not advised of their legal rights. During Ernesto’s trial, the disclaimer on his signed confession was used against him during the trial. He was later found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in a prison. Ernesto and his counsel appealed the guilty verdict and eventually were overturned by the Supreme Court along with other cases that had the same circumstances. Miranda was then awarded by the Supreme Court a new trial but again was found guilty by the jury and was sentenced 20-30 years in prison (US Supreme Court Briefs – FindLaw, n.d.).
The issues of concern that were brought up in the Miranda v. Arizona case were: Does a defendant need to be advised of his right against self-incrimination? Also should any testimony or confessions that are acquired during any interrogation by law enforcement officials without him being read his rights, be allowed to be used as evidence in a court of justice? The answer to the first question is simply yes, any and all defendant should be advised of their right to remain silent and also have proper representation present. For the second question the answer is no, any confession or evidenced obtain without a defendant being read his rights would be considered inadmissible in a court of law (US Supreme Court Briefs – FindLaw, n.d.).
The significance of the Fourth Amendment details that an individual is protected from illegal search and seizure within your home, any documents, or any belongings that may pertain to you to be a violation. It also details no warrant can be issued unless authorities have probable cause. The importance of the Fifth Amendment entails a defendant’s right from self-incrimination, which means the prosecution can’t call upon the defendant and testify as a witness against you. Also, in the Fifth Amendment there is protection against Double Jeopardy, which is a defendant cannot be tried twice for the same crime. There is also a protection from answering any question from authorities until the accused has legal representation present (US Supreme Court Briefs – FindLaw, n.d.).
The importance regarding the Sixth Amendment is that a defendant is entitled to assistance from a defense lawyer. Also, that the accused should have a speedy and public trial by a jury of their peers within a state. Authorities are required to notify an individual of what they are being charged with. As a defendant, you have the right to challenge any witnesses that are used against you by the prosecution by having them be questioned by your defense representation. Besides, this amendment allows the defense to process any witness who is on your side (US Supreme Court Briefs – FindLaw, n.d.).
Out of these Amendments, the one that proposes the greatest protection for a defendant in a court of law would be the Fifth Amendment. They are several reasons for this, and one is that the defendant cannot take the stand and testify against themselves. Another reason is that defendants can abstain from answering any questions from law enforcement officials that may incriminate you. Finally, the Double Jeopardy clause keeps defendants from being tried in court for the same crime twice (US Supreme Court Briefs – FindLaw, n.d.).
The essential experiences from the Miranda v. Arizona case during which any person could take into account the police force had infringed the fundamental trait of an individual’s constitutional amendment entitlement, would be once Mr. E. Miranda was charged with rape along with abducting, so later detained and arrested from his dwelling and placed into police confinement, in which he was secluded from the outside environment and society (US Supreme Court Briefs – FindLaw, n.d.).
He was addressed for a significant number of hours by investigators, detectives, the police and prosecutors, while not having his rights stated to him, nor telling him that he has the right to stay quiet, which anything Mr. E. Miranda says will and can summon against him in an exceedingly court of law. Other than not presenting him his rights, Mr. E. Miranda did not and was not offered any legitimate advice to help him. Being that he was held and interrogated for a long time, they achieved to get a marked admission from him and it was utilized against him as a part of trial, where he was then discovered guilty, and got 20-30 years in jail for it rights (US Supreme Court Briefs – FindLaw, n.d.).
The Fourth Amendment determines that the people have the security and right to be protected in their residences, selves, documents, and alternate impacts from nonsensical searches and seizures. While not having proof to for reasonable justification, would be infringing upon your established rights to protection. In inspecting 3 examples wherever the Fourth Amendment secures people against unlawful inquiry and seizure would be if powers seek a home while not acquiring a warrant, have no reasonable justification and those powers appropriated any potential proof found amid their examination. Another example that ought to be thought-about is people’s right to privacy. Some controversial issues and programs such as the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, which would allow the government without a warrant to collect and store wireless and landline phone records from numerous phone companies’ rights (US Supreme Court Briefs – FindLaw, n.d.).
Apparently, a decent example is eavesdropping on people’s phone calls. However, per the Supreme Court, this isn’t thought of a real violation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy as a result of phone conversations aren’t thought of “searches.” Within the case of Katz v. U.S., Katz’s rights to privacy were violated, once the government illicitly wiretapped a phone booth to snoop on his speech, was thought of a “search” underneath the Fourth Amendment. Another consideration would be having your government confiscate and seize your mail and opening your mail without a court issued warrant is clearly a Fourth Amendment violation against your privacy and considered an illegal search and seizure (Stone, 2013).
Another infringement example of the Fourth Amendment pertains to people who are pulled over by the police for a minimal driving violation, and starts to look through your vehicle; or having the police seizing your automobile or any individual property from the vehicle. The legal way any of these things can happen is if and when authorities have a genuine court order, or an arrest warrant alongside having reasonable justification can be allowed under the Fourth Amendment. Notwithstanding, when an individual is detained without an arrest warrant or reasonable justification, and winds up making an admission of guilt without being educated about their legitimate rights without representation, or without being educated to the charges be brought against them, all are considered to be in a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights (US Supreme Court Briefs – FindLaw, n.d.).
The two-prong test that was verbalized by the court, in which decided the real way of what a sensible desire of security, primarily, it manages the affirmation of the impacts of aerial government reconnaissance, and whether the setting of aerial observation does to apply to Katz’s test of what a sensible desire of protection are (Bush, n.d.). Katz’s prong test fundamentally alludes to the measures that are taken keeping in mind the end goal to forestall ground-based perceptions from government reconnaissance when figuring out whether a person’s entitlement to sensible desire of protection abuses the Fourth Amendment. The court keeps on managing this continuous issue for some time now. The Court still stands by Katz’s test of a sensible desire of security. Despite the fact that warrantless flying reconnaissance is thought to be similar to an open expressway according to law authorization, the courts differ and consider that flying over private land is still viewed as a “search” and subsequently, it falls inside of the importance of the Fourth Amendment rights (Bush, n.d.).
Defending the legitimacy of the test in the courts holding for the Katz v. U.S., backpedals to the issue of the Federal Bureau of Investigation administration exercises of spying when they wiretapped an open telephone stall while Mr. Katz was utilizing it. The Federal Bureau of Investigation eavesdropped in on his discussion as they documented it and used it as support to convict Mr. Katz in a court of law. Being that the Fourth Amendment specifies that it ensures individuals and not areas or places, and afterward as indicated by the administration they didn’t abuse the Fourth Amendment. Then again, as per the Supreme Court, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation indeed disregards Mr. Katz rights to protection once he shut the opening to the telephone stall, making it a sensible desire to security, consequently, the court remains by Mr. Katz’s test of rational desire of protection (Bush, n.d.).
In Examining if whether or not, in today’s norms ought to the administration be permit to have admittance to every electronic technology through enactment, similar to the U.S.A P.A.T.R. I.O.T Act of 2001, and in the event that it successfully nullified the holding of Katz v. United States. Yes, little doubt remains that it does cancel the holding of Katz v. United States. At the point when 9/11 happened, the PATRIOT ACT went by enactment to empower law requirement officers to find and rebuff each one of the individuals who were in charge of the assaults (Doyle, 2002).
The thought behind the PATRIOT ACT was to help anticipate and secure us against any future comparable attacks from happening once more. Along these lines, by permitting elected authorities to have government access to every electronic technology would seem to nullify the holding of Katz v. USA. By giving and permitting government authorities an excess of energy to follow and capture correspondence by setting wiretaps for email checking, or used to usurp property as well as offer fabulous jury data, all falls past the range of the Fourth Amendment. Despite the fact that a three-level framework was set up to allow powers to secure the use of private phones or vis-à-vis secretly, or from PC correspondence, while recognizing and capturing any criminal interchanges, the Supreme Court still stands by the hold of Katz v. United States on irrational pursuit and seizure, and the assurance of private discussions produced using one’s close to home (Doyle, 2002).
All things considered, the centrality of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Constitution Amendments to be set up, was to give the best certification and insurance to litigants and our nation’s residents and respondents from unlawful hunt and seizures of individual property from happening; or misusing our rights to sensible longing of assurance, or being denied our legitimate rights against self-ramifications by not having genuine representation in the midst of law implementation authorities examination. These revisions guarantee that these strategies are observed and honed by cops, prosecutors, and the courts, to ensure sensible treatment while being confined and in the powers’ care.
Bush, T. (n.d.). California Law Review.
Doyle, C. (2002, April 15). The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis.
Stone, G. (2013). Why Bush Violated the Fourth Amendment and Obama Has Not.
US Supreme Court Briefs – FindLaw. (n.d.).
All orders at our writing service are delivered exceptionally for research purposes.
