Eleanor Finch
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and any evidence obtained through a violation of this amendment is generally not admissible in a criminal trial. The exclusionary rule, established in Weeks v. United States (1914), states that all evidence must be obtained legally to be admissible in court. Additionally, the FAIR Act aims to protect Americans' fundamental rights and assets from government overreach. The US Code also outlines penalties for theft, embezzlement, or conversion of public money, property, or records. These laws work together to uphold citizens' rights and ensure due process under the law.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Stealing, embezzling, or purloining public money, property, or records | Fine, imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both |
| Evidence obtained illegally | Generally not admissible by the prosecution during a criminal trial |
| Civil forfeiture | A mechanism for agencies to self-fund through aggressive enforcement |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Fourth Amendment
One of the key protections provided by the Fourth Amendment is the requirement of a warrant. In most cases, law enforcement officials must obtain a warrant from a judge before conducting a search or seizure. The warrant must be based on probable cause, which means that there must be reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched.
In addition to the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, it also provides that evidence obtained through a violation of the amendment is generally not admissible in court. This is known as the exclusionary rule, which was established in Weeks v. United States (1914). The exclusionary rule acts as a deterrent, discouraging law enforcement from violating the Fourth Amendment by removing the incentive to use illegally obtained evidence in court.
Trump's Constitutional Violations: Abuse of Power
You may want to see also
Public money, property, and records
The theft of public money, property, and records is addressed in 18 U.S.C. § 641, which defines it as a crime to steal, embezzle, or knowingly convert for personal gain any record, voucher, money, or something of value issued by a US government department or agency. This includes the fraudulent appropriation of property by someone entrusted with it, often a federal employee with access to government property. Embezzlement is distinct from larceny or other forms of theft in that the physical taking of the property may be lawful, but subsequent misappropriation or conversion for personal use completes the offence.
The punishment for such a crime has changed over time. In 1994, the punishment was a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. However, in 1996, the fine was reduced to "fined under this title", and the imprisonment was increased to not more than ten years. The law also states that if the value of the stolen property does not exceed $1,000, the punishment is reduced to a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both.
It is also a crime to receive, conceal, or retain public property or records with the knowledge that they have been stolen or embezzled, and this is also subject to the same penalties. This is covered by section 101 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
Understanding the Constitution: Amendments Explained
You may want to see also
Civil forfeiture
In the United States, civil forfeiture allows the government, typically the police, to seize and then keep or sell any property suspected of involvement in a crime or illegal activity. This includes cash, cars, and real estate. To get back their property, owners must prove it was not involved in criminal activity, and they need not have been arrested or convicted of a crime for their property to be taken away.
Proponents of civil forfeiture see it as a powerful tool to thwart criminal organizations, particularly those involved in the illegal drug trade, since it allows authorities to seize cash and other assets from suspected narcotics traffickers. The B.C. Civil Forfeiture Office, for example, filed a claim to seize a Langley home where a house explosion was caused by a drug lab.
However, civil forfeiture is often criticized as an unconstitutional exercise of government power, violating the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, and as against a fundamental element of due process. Civil forfeitures are subject to the \"excessive fines\" clause of the Eighth Amendment, as determined by the 2019 Supreme Court case Timbs v. Indiana. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Austin v. United States that a forfeiture could be considered an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment but declined to establish a multi-factor test to determine whether a forfeiture is constitutionally excessive.
The Constitution and Presidential Pardons: What's the Connection?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The exclusionary rule
Illegally obtained evidence may be admissible to attack the defendant's credibility on cross-examination, particularly where necessary to prevent gamesmanship. For example, if a defendant makes a broad statement denying any narcotics activity, they may not use the exclusionary rule as a shield against attacks on their credibility. The Supreme Court has also recognized an exception to the exclusionary rule in cases where the government suspects perjury. In such cases, tainted evidence may be used to impeach, or attack the credibility of, defendants' testimony at trial, but not to show guilt.
The Refugee Ban: Breaking the Constitution's Sacred Promise
You may want to see also
Due process
The United States Constitution does not explicitly mention theft or stealing as a crime. However, various federal and state laws prohibit theft and stealing, and the Constitution provides due process rights that apply to criminal proceedings, including theft cases.
In the context of theft or stealing, due process rights protect individuals from arbitrary or unjust deprivation of their property. This means that the government must follow established legal procedures when accusing someone of theft, conducting searches and seizures, and carrying out arrests.
For example, the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, which could include searches of their person, home, or property during a theft investigation. Any evidence obtained in violation of an individual's Fourth Amendment rights may be ruled inadmissible in court, as per the exclusionary rule established in Weeks v. United States (1914).
Additionally, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to due process of law, which includes the right to a fair trial, the right to remain silent, and the right to compensation for the taking of private property for public use. These rights ensure that individuals accused of theft have a chance to defend themselves and that they are treated fairly throughout the legal process.
The Fourteenth Amendment extends these due process protections to state governments and citizens, ensuring that state laws and procedures regarding theft or stealing also adhere to constitutional standards of fairness and justice.
Constitutional Conundrum: Zip Codes' Legal Standing
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. This includes the seizure of property, which could be interpreted as theft by the government.
The FAIR Act is a proposed piece of legislation that aims to protect Americans and their assets from government overreach and protect the fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to due process.
In 2013, Terry Dehko, a grocer from Michigan, had over $35,000 seized by the IRS using civil forfeiture. In another instance, a grandmother and registered nurse named Anthonia refused to waive her constitutional rights in return for the money that Customs and Border Protection had seized.
