In a democratic country, freedom is an essential determinant of the existence of democracy. Remarkably, after the emancipation of independence, the people were freed not only from foreign control but also from slavery and unnecessary encroachment of the present government. The citizens were also assured of their liberties to effectively exercise and enjoy their freedom. In order to protect these liberties, the founding fathers incorporated these liberties in the Constitution. Through times, these liberties have been challenged in court because of various violations and governmental encroachment.
The government’s assertion of authority over citizens conflicted with the latter’s claim for privacy. In addition, the interpretation of the Constitutional provisions related to the protection of the liberties has been varying. Notably, these liberties are contained in the Amendments in the Constitution. Significantly, these provisions have been also a basis of some in claiming their rights. Likewise, it is also used by the courts as basis in measuring the conflicting rights.However, the settlement of the real purpose and intent of the provisions has been through arduous and extensive scrutiny.
Today, these precedents are used as guidance in preserving justice and fairness and at the same time guarantees individual rights of the citizens. Body The provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing and protecting the liberties of the citizens could have been considered enough to ensure freedom of every individual. But through times, the intent of the founding fathers was not immediately perceived.The purpose of the provisions was not easily comprehended by the justices who served justice.
Instead several cases were not served with justice because of the varying interpretation of the courts. The search for the real intent of the provisions has astonishingly undergone a long journey. Right to Counsel, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clause As has been said, the Constitution protects the liberties of every citizen. Included in the citizens protected are the accused for a crime and even criminals.
One of the provision respecting right of accused is the 6th Amendment which states;In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence” (The United States Constitution, U. S. Constitution Online).Another is the 14th Amendment which states; “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (The United States Constitution, U.S. Constitution Online). These provisions were interpreted in several cases and have actually twisted the minds of the justices in finding the meaning of the provisions.
One of the remarkable cases that challenged the rights established in the 6th and 14th amendment is Betts v. Brady (316 U. S. 455).
In this case, Betts was convicted for robbery and during criminal prosecution of his case, counsel was not available to assist him due to lack of money and resistant of the court to provide him one.The petitioner claimed that he has not been afforded with fair trial as he was not provided with a counsel as contained in the 6th Amendment in relation to 14th Amendment on due process of law and equal protection (316 U. S. 455). The Supreme Court, however, denied his petition for habeas corpus and declared that an assistance of counsel is not necessary to affirm fair trial (316 U. S.
455). Aside from that, the court reiterated that the circumstances surrounding the case proves that he was provided with fair trial as he was given time to establish his alibi and was given a chance to cross-examine the witnesses.Besides, the court would arrive at the same decision if he was provided with one because of the strength of the state’s evidences. Furthermore, the practice in Carroll County, where the petitioner lives, is only to provide counsel for indigent defendants of capital offenses (316 U.
S. 455). In here, the Supreme Court established that the right to counsel depends upon the surrounding facts. Hence, right to counsel is not an absolute right.
After 20 years, the interpretation of the court in Bett’s was reversed completely in Gideon v. Wainwright (372 U.S. 335).
In this case, the petitioner was convicted for breaking and entering a private property without a counsel during trial. In the Supreme Court, the extent of the 6th Amendment was extended as it was made as an absolute right to every individual despite the gravity of crime (Walker, 1993). The assistance of a counsel was declared as a necessity in determining that fair trial has been afforded to the defendant (372 U. S. 335). Significantly, one of the justices stated that; “lawyers are necessities not luxuries” (372 U.
S. 335).This development in the Gideon case has Constitutional significance because it has also extended the due process clause of 14th Amendment to protect individual from government’s encroachment on their right (372 U. S.
335). Eventually, the prisoners who were not represented by a counsel during their trial were released and made it an absolute duty for courts to provide counsel for poor defendants (Walker, 1993). Miranda Rights In relation to right to counsel, the accused is given a right to be informed of his rights under the Miranda doctrine.The Miranda doctrine evolved from the case of Miranda v.
Arizona (384 U. S. 436) where the petitioner was convicted out of his own utterances without first informing him of his Constitutional rights. In deciding the case, the Supreme Court concluded that it is an elementary rule for the arresting officers to inform the accused of his rights to remain silent and to counsel before the questioning process. Failure would eventually make all the evidences taken inadmissible in court as it would amount to self-incrimination contained in 5th Amendment of Constitution (384 U. S.
436). Search and SeizureThe Constitution also protects the citizen from governmental encroachments by establishing the 4th Amendment which provides; “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 persons or things to be seized” (The United States Constitution, U. S. Constitution Online). Notably, the provision of 4th Amendment was challenged in the case of Olmstead v.United States in 1928 (277 U.
S. 438). In this case, the state suspected Olmstead of bootlegging and was convicted thereafter through the evidences obtained from wiretaps installed in the basement of Olmstead’s house (277 U. S. 438). Olmstead, on the other hand, argued that the conviction was a violation of search and seizure without valid warrant and the on self-incrimination because the material conversations were illegally obtained.
However, the Supreme Court declared that the use of wiretapped conversation as evidence for conviction did not violate 4th and 5th Amendment.It reasoned out that search and seizure does not include the wiretapped conversation (277 U. S. 438). Instead, the 4th Amendment covers “only actual physical examination of one’s person, papers, tangible material effects, or home” (277 U.
S. 438). In addition, wiretap conversations are non- discriminatory as they are made voluntarily (277 U. S. 438). Furthermore, the Supreme Court remarkably recognized wiretapping as unethical but it could not be excluded as evidence on moral grounds (277 U.
S. 438).In here, the Supreme Court excluded wiretapped conversations from the protection afforded by 4th Amendment. The principle established in Olmstead was astonishingly reversed in Katz v. United States (389 U. S.
347) wherein the petitioner was suspected of transforming gambling information to his clients through phone. The state then put up a surveillance device on the public booth used by the petitioner (389 U. S. 347). The device was purposely to record all conversations between Katz and his clients. The conversations were then used as evidence against Katz that also led to his conviction.
Katz appealed in the Supreme Court claiming that the conversations were covered by rights of privacy protected by 4th Amendment (389 U. S. 347). In the resolution of the issue, the Supreme Court concluded that the protection afforded by the 4th Amendment applies to people and not to places (389 U.
S. 347). Physical intrusion or search into the place is not required because the Constitution protects the privacy of the person which extends to his conversations (Staples, 2007). Thus, the zone covered by privacy rights includes accessible areas located in public realms (389 U.
S. 347). In addition, the court recognized that 4th Amendment also protects intangible items such as conversations (Staples, 2007). Significantly, it can be observed in the decision that the court recognized the effect of technology in the privacy of every individual. From here, conversations taken illegally cannot be presented as evidence in court.
Exclusionary Rule Through times, the Court settled that all evidences obtained illegally cannot be used as evidence in court. This is referred today as exclusionary rule established in Weeks v. United States (232 U.S.
383). In this case, Police officers entered the home of Weeks and obtained the papers that led to the conviction of the latter for transporting lottery tickets through mail (232 U. S. 383). Weeks, on the other hand, claimed privacy and processes of search and seizure under 4th Amendment. However, the lower courts dismissed his claim.
In the resolution of the case, the Supreme Court declared that the acts of the police officers amounted to invasion of privacy, personal property, personal security, and private property (Segal and Spaeth, 2002).As a result, the state cannot use the evidences because it was obtained in violation of the Constitution. This was remarkably the very first time that the court founded the exclusionary rule which means “evidence illegally seized is barred from court” (Segal and Spaeth, 2002). Interestingly, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court adamantly stayed on the inadmissibility of evidences taken without a valid warrant (367 U.
S. 643). In this case, Mapp was convicted for possessing obscene materials through an incidental illegal entry of the police officers in search for a fugitive.Mapp set up the 1st Amendment, specifically on freedom of expression, as defense. However, the court disregarded the claim for 1st Amendment and instead declared that the evidence cannot be used as evidences as it amount to self- incrimination and clear violation of right to privacy and wanting essential requisites of search and seizure. On the basis of the cases propounded, it can be deduced that the court was through historical struggle in finding the real intent of the Constitutional provisions.
In addition, the boundary that separates the rights of the government over the citizens and the privacy right of the citizens was slim.Moreover, the court was shallow in interpreting the circumstances of the case as they concentrated also on the content. Consequently, the court became stricter in its interpretation of the Constitutional provisions. Eventually, the decisions held before were reversed and the rights of the citizens were upheld as against the authority of the government. Furthermore, it can be construed that rights may have been assured by the Supreme Court but the assurance of the Constitutional guarantees were made possible only by the succeeding decisions of the court in several cases.
The drastic changes were even perceived to be tolerable and lax as to the criminal acts of the defendants. However, these rulings presently exist and are used as precedents in guiding cases involving the same issue. Conclusion The Constitution does not merely stands as the very foundation of the nation but more importantly establish and protects the rights of the individuals. These rights have been recognized as essential in the existence of democracy.
At the same time, it is the armor of every citizen from any abuses of the government.Although there exist conflicting interest of government and of the citizens, but the courts or the judicial branch exist for the purpose of putting a division and making an intelligent decision in weighing and evaluating the conflicting rights. At present, the citizens are benefiting from the principles established in the Supreme Court decisions because the rights are given paramount considerations as against government claimed rights. Finally, the cases raised were essential in protecting and ensuring fairness in securing the individuals rights embodied in the Constitution.
