Other civil liberties: accused people and privacy

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments limit investigation and prosecution

The Fourth Amendment protects people, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant must be supported by probable cause and describe the place and things with particularity, although recognised exceptions can apply. The exclusionary rule can prevent some unlawfully obtained evidence from being used at trial; Mapp v. Ohio (1961) applied that rule in state criminal cases. It is not an automatic remedy for every procedural mistake: courts assess the search, the evidence and applicable doctrines.

The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination: a person cannot be forced to give incriminating testimony against themselves in a criminal case. Double jeopardy limits repeated prosecution or punishment for the same offence, subject to the governing doctrine; it is not a ban on every later proceeding connected to an event. Due process requires government to follow legally adequate procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty or property. The Fifth Amendment binds federal government; the Fourteenth Amendment supplies a due-process protection against states.

Eminent domain is government taking private property for public use, for which the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation. A grand jury considers whether an indictment is supported; it does not decide guilt at trial. The Fifth Amendment grand-jury clause applies to serious federal crimes, subject to its exceptions. States do not all use a federal-style grand jury, so do not claim that every criminal charge everywhere requires an indictment.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) requires safeguards before custodial interrogation. The warnings cover remaining silent, the possible use of statements in court, consultation with a lawyer and the lawyer’s presence during questioning, and appointed counsel for someone who cannot afford one. A waiver must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent. Identify custody and interrogation before applying the rule: a non-custodial police conversation does not automatically require these warnings. The Miranda safeguards for questioning and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in prosecution have related purposes but different triggers.

The Sixth and Eighth Amendments protect fairness and dignity

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in covered criminal prosecutions, notice of the accusation, the ability to confront witnesses and obtain witnesses, and assistance of counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) held that an indigent defendant charged with a felony in state court has a right to appointed counsel. It is not a general right to free legal representation in every civil dispute or every interaction with police.

A speedy-trial claim depends on the circumstances rather than one fixed number of days. Consider the length and reasons for delay, whether the defendant asserted the right, and possible prejudice. Jury, confrontation and compulsory-process protections concern the fairness of the proceeding; identify which right the facts raise instead of treating them as one undifferentiated guarantee.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail and fines and cruel and unusual punishments. It does not promise bail in every case, set one universal fine limit, or categorically abolish capital punishment. The constitutionality of a punishment depends on the law, the offence, the person, the procedure and the governing precedent; avoid turning a broad principle into an answer to every sentencing question.

Privacy is a constitutional question with more than one source

The Constitution does not put every privacy question in one express, unlimited clause. Privacy claims may draw on the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable government searches, the Ninth Amendment’s recognition that listing some rights does not deny other rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty through due process. Which protection applies depends on the government action, the information or decision at issue and the relevant precedent. A claim about a private company’s data practices is not automatically a Fourth Amendment search by government.

Privacy examples in the syllabus include personal data, medical and educational records, government surveillance and bodily autonomy. Riley v. California (2014) held that police generally need a warrant to search the digital contents of a phone seized from an arrested person, while recognising that ordinary exceptions may still matter. It illustrates how courts apply older constitutional language to new technology; it is not a rule that every collection or use of data is unconstitutional.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) recognised a constitutional privacy protection in the context of married couples’ access to contraception. Roe v. Wade (1973) later recognised a constitutional right to abortion; Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) overruled Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and returning authority to the people and their elected representatives. Dobbs changed the constitutional rule for abortion; it did not erase every privacy protection or make abortion law identical in every jurisdiction. Separate the historical holding from current state and federal law, which can vary and change.