Defining Constitutional Law
At the simplest level, constitutional law is a body of rules and principles that aim to establish the framework for how government is organized and functions. It sets forth the responsibilities of the various branches of government, delineates fundamental rights, and provides a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. Constitutional law is based on constitutions, which can be written or unwritten, and which are intended to be a permanent framework for the government as well as its interactions with the citizens and public entities it regulates .
As such, constitutional law specifically establishes limits on the powers of government so that governments do not overstep their bounds and infringe on individual rights. Constitutional law also provides for the mechanism by which laws are made. Constitutional law ensures that due process is provided to all those accused of crimes, that defendants can expect fair treatment by courts, and that people seeking justice have access to legal recourse through the judicial system.
Criminal Justice in the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of the separation of powers doctrine and the most important safeguard to citizens of this country. The Bill of Rights basically limits the role of government and affords guaranteed protection to individual citizens. The 17th amendment now provides for the election of senators by the people instead of the state legislatures, the 18th amendment prohibits liquor and alcoholic drinks (Prohibition) and the 19th amendment grants women the right to vote.
The fourth, fifth and sixth amendments afford protection to persons accused of crimes and work together as a cohesive set of procedures to ensure justice. The fourth amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Recent cases like Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona have established critical rules that give citizens protection from unreasonable and unwarranted removal of their rights. The third part of this Criminal Justice System Series explores how the Bill of Rights impacts criminal justice procedures.
Due Process and the Right to a Fair Trial
Due process, or the right to a fair trial, is a core Constitutional principle that applies to all stages of the criminal justice system—from police arresting a suspect to the jury returning its verdict. The Sixth Amendment provides that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."
The idea that criminal defendants have a right to a fair trial dates back to the Magna Carta. Due process, the right to fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen’s entitlement, was included in the Fifth Amendment.
The Sixth Amendment essentially codifies what due process means. Trials must be public. Defendants are entitled to an impartial jury. They have a right to legal counsel. Witnesses may be cross-examined. An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And the accused is guaranteed that he or she will be tried in the district where the crime was committed.
The fact that all of these provisions are included in the Constitution, as opposed to being simply good government practices, suggests that our founding fathers thought it important to specifically enumerate them. Following the Constitution is how we ensure the rule of law is upheld. Having a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury is an essential part of this. Since the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizures and Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy (to be tried for the same crime twice) and self-incrimination are also provided in the Constitution, it is apparent our founding fathers were concerned with the administration of fair trials.
Search and Seizure in the Constitution
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees this right primarily in criminal cases because this protection against unreasonable search and seizure arose out of the British government’s use of "general warrants" which provided them with the authority to search any place without a specific reason. Injustice occurred when these general warrants enabled British troops to conduct searches and seizures for no reason other than that the government suspected a person of wrongdoing. The framers of the Constitution were adamant that citizens be protected from such unlawful behavior.
The constitutional provisions against unreasonable search and seizure specifically give the right to a person to be free from a government intrusion into his or her privacy. Law enforcement must be able to demonstrate probable cause that the object, person or place to be searched, or seized contains evidence of a crime. Probable cause is determined by a judge or magistrate and the warrant allows law enforcement to do a particular search and makes it legal. The requirements for a warrant include naming the person or place to be searched and the items to be searched for. This is important because without this warrant a search will be considered unlawful.
Case law has developed over the years to further establish how unreasonable search and seizure is to be applied in the state and federal courts. In Mapp v. Ohio, (1961) the U.S. Supreme Court held that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in state courts. This case extended the exclusionary rule, which prevented the use in federal court of evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure without a warrant issued by a neutral judge or magistrate from the rules that apply to federal courts to state courts. Terry v. Ohio, (1968) held that police do not need a warrant in every case where they have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime or was about to commit a crime. Terry Frisk, as it is known, is a key element of the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Whether police may stop a person and conduct a search can depend on the location in which the person is when the police stop him. If he is on public property a different standard may apply than if he is on private property. The public’s right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure should be balanced against the police’s need to take action in certain private settings.
Right to Counsel
The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to legal counsel, which is the basis for the right to defense in criminal cases in this country. In Rothgery v. Gordon (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to counsel attaches when a defendant is formally charged. While the Constitution guarantees that anyone charged with a felony has a right to free legal counsel, a right to counsel in other criminal cases is based on state law, so the rules vary from state to state.
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the U.S . Supreme Court found that the Sixth Amendment did apply to the states, and that even people who could not afford a defense attorney were entitled to one in criminal matters. In Powell v. Alabama (1932), the court had previously held that the rights of the accused are to be protected against state law as well as federal law. In that case, the man’s attorney was murdered on the day before his trial, and the judge in the case flatly refused to hold off the trial so the defendant could have a lawyer, ruling instead that he could represent himself. The case was ultimately won at the U.S. Supreme Court level. Before Gideon, the right to free counsel only applied to federal cases.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
The boundary between constitutional law and criminal justice has been profoundly influenced by landmark Supreme Court decisions over the past century. These cases have not only provided a framework for the enforcement of constitutional rights but have also driven systemic changes in law enforcement practices nationwide. Such decisions have been particularly significant in areas where constitutional protections are most likely to collide with everyday law enforcement activities. One of the most influential cases in this regard is Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which instituted what are now known as Miranda rights. The ruling requires that prior to a custodial interrogation, a suspect must be informed of their constitutional rights to counsel and against self-incrimination. This case was a response to widespread concerns regarding the coercive tactics used by police during interrogations to extract confessions from suspects without regard for their constitutional rights. In the wake of Miranda, many law enforcement agencies implemented specific training programs for officers on how to read Miranda rights, which helped to standardize the protocol across different jurisdictions. Today, when a person is arrested, they must be read their rights before being questioned. This requirement has not only protected the rights of the individual but has also facilitated a more transparent legal process, backed by public sound recordings of the interrogation that can be later reviewed in court. Another example of how constitutional law has influenced the criminal justice system is the exclusionary rule, which was solidified by weeks v. United States in 1961. The rule bars the use of evidence obtained in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. In weeks, the FBI obtained evidence without a warrant and subsequently used it to secure a conviction. The Supreme Court ruled that the seizure of the evidence violated the Fourth Amendment, and thus all evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful search was inadmissible against the defendant. Exclusionary rules have substantial implications for law enforcement practices, as officers must now notify judges or magistrates when seeking to gather evidence. Rather than relying solely on their own discretion to conduct searches and seizures, law enforcement must now build an adequate justification beyond their own expertise. It is clear that Supreme Court decisions have had far-reaching consequences for the criminal justice system. In addition to these two landmark cases, numerous other rulings have impacted the application of constitutional law in the realm of criminal justice, including Gideon v. Wainwright on the right to counsel, Atkins v. Virginia on the execution of the intellectually disabled, and many more. The interplay between constitutional law and the criminal justice system continues to evolve as new challenges arise. What remains constant, however, is that landmark Supreme Court decisions will continue to play a critical role in shaping the future of both.
Security vs. Liberty
An ongoing challenge in the criminal justice system is balancing the needs of national security against preserving individual liberties as outlined in the Constitution. For centuries, the courts have carefully navigated this tightrope as various threats have arisen over time. Securing the nation from both foreign and domestic threats has always been important, sometimes leading to drastic actions such as the interment of Japanese Americans during WWII and the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
In modern-day America, the challenge of balancing security versus liberty comes into play in many areas of criminal justice including surveillance, immigration, national security letters, and other national security-related events . The grave terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 forced American law enforcement agencies to turn their focus towards America’s network of transportation systems, infrastructure, energy plants, and the borders, becoming part of the war on terror battle.
With the explosive growth of forensic identification, genetic testing, and personal information storage capabilities, the need arose for the United States Supreme Court to adjudicate the dangers and opportunities that these technologies hold in exposing privacy rights or revealing dangerous terrorists. The privacy protections outlined in the Fourth Amendment are continuously analyzed with a myriad of new privacy concerns.
What the next chapter of evolving national security threats and revealed technologies has in store for the courts is yet to be seen, but it is clear that the need for fine-tuned balance between individual liberties and national security threats is here to stay.