The criminal justice system, which includes the law enforcement departments and agencies complemented by the judicial system of the federal and state government, is responsible for ensuring law and order. However, the intensity of the crimes and the public pressure can result to the law enforcement departments and agencies to employ inhumane tactics in their investigations to ensure that they are able to gain evidence that will ensure that the suspects’ prosecutions take the least time possible (Luther & Snook, 2012). These methods can result in police brutality and violation of the rights of the suspect that would even result in innocent suspects claiming that they are responsible for the crimes that they did not commit.
The founding fathers understood that bias, brutality, and violation of human rights was not an act condoned in a civilized democracy as America. Hence, the formulation of the fourth, fifth, sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to ensure that the criminal justice system would treat the entire suspect innocent until proven guilty. Miranda v. Arizona case also resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court demonstrating the importance of officers to ensure that they enlighten the suspect their rights before during arrests leading to the inclusion of Miranda warning to ensure evidence would be admissible in a court of law (Luther & Snook, 2012). Therefore, in the bid to understand the effects of these laws and the Miranda case law, this essay defines and analyzes their employment from both a literary definition and practical application. The first section focuses on the literary definition whereas the last part addresses the practical application of the four laws and the Miranda rights in connection with the execution of interrogations by law enforcement.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Part 1
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments laws in the constitution that ensure that interrogations are carried out in legal and humane manner and protect the suspect from incriminating themselves. The existence of these laws did not stop the law enforcement to trick, lie, subject witnesses to self-incrimination and brutalize the suspects when interrogating them until the Supreme Court interpreted that such actions made all the evidence is inadmissible in a court of law during the Miranda v. Arizona case in 1966 as discussed later in the paper. Brown v. Mississippi case in 1936 is one of the major cases that demonstrated the need to interpret the constitution and determine the legal aspects of interrogations.
In the case, Brown, the police, whipped, hanged but declined to accede to the commands by the police to confess. Days later, Brown was tortured again several days after his release with the police telling him that they would continue whipping him until he confessed. Brown knowing that the only way out was by confessing; he confessed to the deputy and was delivered to jail (Luther & Snook, 2012). The essence that the ropes and whipping marks were still visible during his trial is an indication that negotiations can be brutal which would even lead to innocent people falling victims of such brutality.
Fourth Amendment
The Amendment acknowledges the right of an individual to privacy or ensure that the federal or state government does not violate a person’s privacy. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment provides an individual right to privacy by stipulating,
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 person or things to be seized . ("Crime and Due Process", n.d.)
Therefore, the fourth Amendment prohibits unwarranted searches and seizures without a probable cause. The law enforcement is expected to prove to the judge who offers a warrant that the activities of the suspect is a criminal and failure to engage in search and seizure would result in the individual interfering with the evidence. In cases where officers undertake unwarranted searches and seizures, the evidence they provide is only admissible in a court of law if the officer demonstrates there was probable cause for the search and seizure and the process of securing a warrant would have resulted in the accused tampering with the evidence (Counsil, 2017). Failure to provide such evidence of probable cause have resulted in such evidence being inadmissible and in most times the offender is released for lack of evidence.
Fifth Amendment
This constitutional provision provides suspects with the rights against self-incrimination. It argues that suspects should not be compelled to provide information that is used against themselves. The moments of arrest can be quite confusing and depressing and with adrenaline high, the suspects are likely to give in to suggestions such as immunity if they confess or strict sentences if they fail to confess. These issues and techniques by the law enforcement have resulted in the self-incrimination as was demonstrated in the Miranda v. Arizona whereby the coercive nature of incommunicado of police interrogation overwhelmed the suspect’s ability to assert their right as provided by the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court interpreted the self-incrimination clause and stated that during arrests the police should ensure that the suspect knows and understand his/her rights (Luther & Snook, 2012). Hence, the essence of the most famous statement during arrests by the police, which is termed as the Miranda warning. The officer states to the offender, that he/she have a right to remain silent and anything he/she states can and will be used in a court of law. The officer is expected to ensure that the person understands these rights (Luther & Snook, 2012). The final part of the Miranda warning is the right to an attorney but this right is provided by the sixth Amendment.
Sixth Amendment
The Miranda warning final part states that the individual has the right to an attorney and if he/she cannot afford one the state will provide. This right is provided by the 6 th Amendment which provides any suspect with the right to counsel to ensure that the person is able to get legal advice that would be important in defending an individual’s and ensuring free and fair prosecution.
Fourteenth Amendment
The aspects of federal and states’ government working in collaboration but still separated resulted in the need to ensure that the federal government was not too powerful to command the state’s issues. However, guided by the Constitution ensure the minimum regulations to the state’s laws on matters of human rights. Therefore, the 14 th Amendment protects individuals against state government agents infringing on the due process rights ("Crime and Due Process", n.d.). The Due Process Clause states that a state shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law and warns against involuntary confessions as such confessions violate the individual rights to liberty.
Part 2
The founding fathers were mindful of the concept of officers abusing their authority in the bid to hasten the prosecutions. However, they had not anticipated of technological innovations and scientific excellence that would result in the use of DNA in different cases. The ‘Grim Sleeper’ a nickname for Looney David Franklin Jr., the case is one that poses many questions on the use of DNA in criminal investigations. According to Sher and Karlinsky (2010), the Los Angeles Police Department frustrated of the killer terrorizing the LA for more than three decades and their inability to solve the murders decided to run evidence from the killings through the arrestee database (Sher & Karlinsky, 2010). The LAPD found a partial match for an individual arrested and was already in the system for criminal deviance.
The continued searches resulted in a parent-child relationship resulting in the precise match thus leading to an unwarranted search for the parent of and were able to use the details of the child to search for the parent they believed was the Grim Sleeper or the serial killer. The LAPD narrowed the search, followed Looney David Franklin Jr., and would later acquire his DNA from a public damp after he had thrown away his pizza remnants (Counsil, 2017). The LAPD had been following Franklin and through these illegal investigations, they had acquired the evidence they wanted as the DNA matched to those acquired in the murders.
The case raised the issue of Fourth Amendment due to the illegal search and seizure but the court was adamant that by throwing, the remnants of in a public damp bin. The essence that the investigators did not invade his privacy, as they did not investigate his home, the DNA evidence was admissible in a court of law (Counsil, 2017). However, the issue of arrestees having to leave their DNA in the database and the investigation inability to investigate the crime had resulted in the tactic to use DNA should demonstrate that such a system violates the arrestees’ privacy and their illegal investigation did not have probable cause (Montaldo, 2017). The LAPD did not acquire a warrant for their search and seizure, therefore, evidence gained from their search and seizure should not be admissible in court.
The other issue that DNA collection from arrestees’ raise is the Fifth Amendment since it can seem as self-incriminating although Supreme Court decisions have demonstrated that the Fifth Amendment only prohibits spoken evidence. However, it is quite difficult to understand how DNA evidence such as in this case is not an illustration of self-incriminating, because it is only through the DNA evidence that the Franklin was convicted to 20 to 30 years imprisonment. Lastly, the question of whether arrestees’ DNA storage in the database is advised by the attorney may also lead to questioning its legality under the sixth Amendment. The inability to ensure privacy after serving one’s sentence may result in the due process clause issue whereby a law enforcer may access the DNA such as the LAPD did in Franklin’s case.
References
Counsil, T. (2017). The New Frontier: Genetic Analysis and the Concept of Rights Infringement. Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences , 17 (1).
Crime and Due Process. Retrieved July 11, 2018, from http://www.ushistory.org/gov/10c.asp
Luther, K., & Snook, B. (2012). Book Review: Police Interrogations and False Confessions: Current Research, Practice, and Policy Recommendations Police Interrogations and False Confessions: Current Research, Practice, and Policy Recommendations. Lassiter G. D. Meissner C. A. (Eds.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2010. 249 pp. ISBN 1433807432. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 39 (5), 679-680.
Montaldo, C. (April 3, 2017). Judge Rules 'grim Sleeper' DNA Witness Not Qualified As Expert. Retrieved July 11, 2018, from https://www.thoughtco.com/grim-sleeper-serial-killer-case-973119
Sher, L., & Karlinsky, N. (July 8, 2010). 'Grim Sleeper' Suspect Caught. Retrieved July 11, 2018, from http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/familys-dna-led-police-grim-sleeper-serial-killer/story?id=11116381
