Criminal Procedure: Constitutional Nature Explained

The nature of the constitution criminal procedure is a branch of constitutional law that deals with the rules of law governing the procedures by which authorities investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes. The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure, with the specific topics being organised under criminal procedure and constitutional government, arrest, search and seizure, interrogation by law enforcement, warrants, the exclusionary rule, and trial proceedings. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments are often cited in criminal procedure, with the Fourth Amendment protecting individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment protecting individuals from self-incrimination.

Explore related products

Criminal Procedure and the Constitution, Leading Supreme Court Cases and Introductory Text, 2025 (American Casebook Series)

$225

Examples & Explanations for Criminal Procedure: The Constitution and the Police (Examples & Explanations Series)

$48.55 $76.95

Criminal Procedure and the Constitution, Leading Supreme Court Cases and Introductory Text, 2024 (American Casebook Series)

$225

Criminal Procedure and the Constitution, Leading Supreme Court Cases and Introductory Text, 2023 (American Casebook Series)

$154.98 $225

The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles

$34.47 $38

Criminal Procedure and the Constitution, Leading Supreme Court Cases and Introductory Text, 2021 (American Casebook Series)

$114 $190

Criminal procedure and constitutional government

Criminal procedure is a branch of constitutional law that deals with the rules and processes governing criminal investigations, prosecutions, and trials. It outlines the powers and limitations of the government and law enforcement agencies in enforcing criminal laws while protecting the rights of individuals. The US Constitution, particularly through the Bill of Rights, provides several provisions and amendments that directly impact criminal procedure.

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring law enforcement to obtain search warrants based on probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation. This amendment limits the pre-arrest investigative powers of law enforcement, ensuring that any evidence obtained through unconstitutional means is inadmissible in court. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be compelled to incriminate themselves and protects against double jeopardy, ensuring that individuals cannot be prosecuted for the same offence after an acquittal or conviction. It also provides the right to indictment by a grand jury and regulates pre-trial procedures.

The Sixth Amendment grants criminal defendants the right to a speedy trial, ensuring that charges are filed and prosecuted without undue delay. It includes the Confrontation Clause, which guarantees the defendant's right to confront their accuser and excludes incriminating out-of-court statements as hearsay if the witness is unavailable. The Sixth Amendment also provides the right to a trial by an impartial jury, although this does not apply to "petty crimes" or minors in the juvenile justice system. The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishments, further regulating pre-trial procedures.

The Fourteenth Amendment applies these substantive due process rights to state criminal defendants, ensuring that state governments cannot deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The US Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing these constitutional rights, with landmark cases such as Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona shaping the understanding and application of these amendments.

Criminal procedure, therefore, serves as a critical safeguard in constitutional government, balancing the need for effective law enforcement with the protection of individual liberties. It ensures that criminal justice is administered fairly and justly, preserving the rights enshrined in the US Constitution.

Arrest warrants, stop and frisk

Criminal procedure is a branch of constitutional law that deals with the rules governing how authorities investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes. The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding criminal procedure, with additional provisions in the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a stop-and-frisk is significantly less intrusive than a full-blown search and seizure, and that police should have this investigative right as part of their preventive function. However, the Court has also acknowledged the dangers of a broad stop-and-frisk law, especially regarding minorities and the poor. In the case of Rodriguez, the Court held that a prolonged sniff search by a police dog violated the Fourth Amendment, and any criminal evidence found during an unreasonable search is subject to the exclusionary rule and will be excluded from trial.

In Utah v. Strieff, the Supreme Court held that when a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant exists for an individual, any evidence obtained from a stop of that individual is admissible in court, even if the stop would otherwise violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court has also ruled that evidence obtained by the exploitation of an illegal arrest is not admissible, and has outlined a three-factor balancing test to determine admissibility, including the temporal proximity between the unlawful stop and search, the purpose and flagrancy of official misconduct, and the existence of a valid warrant.

Search and seizure

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens against "unreasonable searches and seizures". This right to privacy means that law enforcement must usually obtain a search warrant or consent from the owner before conducting a search. The Fourth Amendment states:

> "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 Fifth Amendment also plays a role in search and seizure cases, as it states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". The interpretation of "probable cause", "unreasonable", and "compelled" is generally determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In some cases, a third party with equal control over the property may consent to a search. Additionally, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as when there is probable cause to believe that a suspect is present in a private residence, or in the case of a telephone search warrant.

If an individual experiences an unreasonable search and seizure, they can seek to have any evidence excluded from court proceedings. However, there is often no statutory remedy or recourse for searches and seizures that do not yield evidence, and civil damages are rarely awarded.

Explore related products

Basic Criminal Law: The Constitution, Procedure, and Crimes

$195.01 $233.32

Criminal Procedure and the Constitution, Leading Supreme Court Cases and Introductory Text, 2022 (American Casebook Series)

$154.74 $225

Criminal Procedure and the Constitution, Leading Supreme Court Cases and Introductory Text, 2019 (American Casebook Series)

$93.19 $175

Examples & Explanations: Criminal Procedure: The Constitution and the Police

$36.71 $58.95

Criminal Procedure: Constitution and Society

$93.99 $158.4

Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing (Aspen Coursebook)

$72.99 $143

Interrogation by law enforcement

The United States Constitution contains several provisions that govern the procedures law enforcement must follow when interrogating a suspect. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments are particularly relevant in this context, as they serve to balance police powers with citizens' rights.

The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants to be supported by probable cause. This amendment sets the standard for determining whether an interrogation constitutes a seizure or custody, which is relevant for self-incrimination purposes under the Fifth Amendment. For example, in Berkemer v. McCarty, the Court held that a traffic stop did not amount to Miranda custody, as the motorist's freedom of action was not curtailed to the degree associated with a formal arrest.

The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves in criminal cases. This amendment is central to the admissibility of statements made during interrogations in criminal trials. The Miranda warning, named after the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona case, advises criminal suspects of their right to silence and protection from self-incrimination. Law enforcement officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings during an arrest or when a person becomes a suspect, but rather when the person is in custody or being interrogated. If a suspect is not informed of their Miranda rights, any statements they make during an interrogation may not be used as evidence against them in a criminal trial, even if they were obtained voluntarily. However, law enforcement may still interrogate the person and act upon the knowledge gained.

The Supreme Court has clarified that interrogation for Miranda purposes does not require police officers to explicitly ask a question. For example, in Arizona v. Mauro, the Court held that a suspect was not interrogated when the police brought his wife, who was also a suspect, to speak with him in their presence. The Court emphasized that the meeting was not a police-initiated ruse designed to elicit a response from the suspect and did not involve coercion.

The Court has also considered the age of the person being interrogated, as juveniles may require Miranda warnings in certain situations. In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, the Court remanded the case to evaluate whether a thirteen-year-old student questioned by a uniformed police officer on school grounds was in custody.

In addition to the Miranda warning, the Fifth Amendment also includes the right to counsel during interrogation. In Escobedo v. Illinois, the Court held that a confession obtained from a suspect in custody who repeatedly requested but was denied access to his counsel was inadmissible. The Court emphasized that the suspect had not been warned of his constitutional rights, demonstrating the importance of Miranda warnings in protecting individuals' rights during interrogations.

The right to a speedy trial

The Speedy Trial Act mandates specific time intervals to ensure a swift and efficient administration of justice. Firstly, any information or indictment must be filed within 30 days of arrest or the service of a summons. Secondly, the arraignment of the accused must take place within 10 days of the filing date of the information or indictment, or their appearance before a judicial officer. Finally, if a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial must commence within 60 days from the date of arraignment. These time limits are subject to certain excludable delays, such as the availability of witnesses or the complexity of the case, and they aim to enhance the deterrent value of punishment by reducing the time available for those released pending trial to commit additional offences.

While the Speedy Trial Act sets clear time limits, there have been instances where these limits have been exceeded. In such cases, the Act mandates the dismissal of criminal charges upon the defendant's motion. However, this dismissal does not act as a bar to future prosecution. The landmark case of Barker v. Wingo in 1972 addressed the right to a speedy trial, with the Supreme Court acknowledging the vague nature of this concept and the challenges in defining precise time requirements.

In conclusion, the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental constitutional guarantee that safeguards the rights of the accused and promotes efficiency in the criminal justice system. The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 provides further definition and enforcement mechanisms to ensure this right is upheld, contributing to a fairer and more timely administration of justice.

Frequently asked questions