Amendments Shaping Policing: The Us Constitution's Direct Impact

The US Constitution gives states the inherent police power to regulate behaviour and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of health, safety, morals, and general welfare. The Tenth Amendment states that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government belong to the states. This means that the police power is primarily concentrated within state governments, while the federal government possesses it in limited contexts, such as interstate commerce. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause limits how much a state can impact a person's life, liberty, or property. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments refer to due process as a singular idea, but modern approaches break it down into two distinct protections: procedural due process and substantive due process. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments also apply to the duties of law enforcement officers, such as the right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures.

Explore related products

The Civilian Rights Handguide: A Citizen's Guide to Navigating Police Encounters

$14.92

Legal Guide for Police: Constitutional Issues

$31.86 $54.95

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $14.95

The Constitution of the United States of America, with the Bill of Rights and all of the Amendments; The Declaration of Independence; and the Articles of Confederation

$6.2

A Short and Happy Guide to the First Amendment (Short and Happy Series)

$21

Declaration Of Independence, Constitution Of The United States Of America, Bill Of Rights And Constitutional Amendments

$9.2

The Fourteenth Amendment limits state police powers

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution limits state police powers by providing due process protections to actions by state governments. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". This limits how much a state can impact a person's life, liberty, or property, ensuring that public health regulations do not violate a person's constitutional rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause also extends to the equal protection clause, which states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This clause ensures that state police powers are exercised without discrimination and that all individuals are treated equally under the law.

While states have broad police powers to regulate behaviour and enforce order within their territory, the Fourteenth Amendment acts as a check on these powers by requiring procedural due process. This means that the government must follow certain procedures when making decisions that could infringe on individual liberties. For example, individuals must be given adequate notice and an opportunity for a hearing before losing certain benefits or entitlements.

The Fourteenth Amendment also encompasses substantive due process, which protects civil rights that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution but are closely tied to life, liberty, and property. This aspect of the Amendment has been used by the Supreme Court to protect civil rights and ensure that state actions are subject to strict scrutiny.

The Fifth Amendment and procedural due process

The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". This amendment technically applies only to actions by the federal government, but the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same wording to extend this obligation to the states.

Procedural due process refers to the processes that the government must follow when making decisions that could infringe on individual liberties. This often requires the government to provide a person with notice and an opportunity for a hearing before such a deprivation. For example, procedural due process generally requires adequate notice and an opportunity for a hearing before a person can lose financial assistance from their state government.

Procedural due process has also been a significant factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction. It has been deemed inherently unfair for the judicial machinery of a state to take away the property of a person who has no connection to it. As such, a significant portion of US constitutional law is directed at determining what kinds of connections to a state are sufficient for that state's assertion of jurisdiction over a non-resident to comport with procedural due process.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause to include substantive due process guarantees that protect certain fundamental constitutional rights from federal government interference, regardless of the procedures the government follows when enforcing the law.

The Fourth Amendment and unlawful searches

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is often viewed as two clauses. The first clause protects the people's right to privacy and security in their persons, homes, papers, and possessions from unjustified government intrusion. This means that the government cannot conduct "unreasonable searches and seizures" without a warrant, and it applies to arrests and evidence gathering.

The second clause of the Fourth Amendment states that warrants may only be issued with "probable cause," supported by an oath or affirmation. This means that a neutral judge must review and approve a warrant application based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The warrant must also specifically describe the location to be searched and the items to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment was created to prevent the type of unjustified searches and seizures that the Framers had experienced under English rule. It reflects the importance of protecting individuals' rights to personal security, personal liberty, and private property.

The Supreme Court has been interpreting and defining what constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment for over two centuries. With technological advancements, the government's ability to search and surveil people has expanded, blurring the lines of what constitutes a search. For example, the definition of a "search" has evolved since 1886, when the Supreme Court ruled that it is not just the "breaking of his doors and the rummaging of his drawers," but also the invasion of one's "indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property" (Boyd v. United States, 1886). Today, there is a general understanding that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home but not in a public park or on the sidewalk.

Explore related products

Unreasonable: Black Lives, Police Power, and the Fourth Amendment

$20.05 $27.99

American Constitutional Law, Volume II: The Bill of Rights and Subsequent Amendments

$106.04 $150

The Constitutional Amendments: 1789 To the Present

$154.39

The Digital Fourth Amendment: Privacy and Policing in Our Online World

$26.77 $34.95

US Constitution: Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, & Amendments

$7.64 $7.64

The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen's Guidebook to the History, Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

$12.99 $12.99

The Sixth Amendment and evidence use

The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, grants citizens a series of rights in criminal trials. These rights include the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be aware of the criminal charges, to confront witnesses during the trial, to have witnesses appear in the trial, and the right to legal representation.

The Sixth Amendment has had a significant impact on policing by shifting the responsibility for investigating crimes and questioning witnesses from magistrates and judges to the respective sides involved in a legal trial. This adversarial system, characteristic of Anglo-American law, places the onus on the prosecution and defence to conduct their own investigations, present their own evidence, and argue their case in court. This shift has led to the development of professional police forces that specialise in investigating crimes and arresting suspects.

The amendment also provides defendants with the right to challenge the foundations of "junk science" and unreliable bodies of knowledge, such as flawed hair analysis, arson investigations, and shaken baby syndrome. Defendants can utilise the Compulsory Process Clause to subpoena analysts and witnesses, and introduce evidence to impeach their credibility. Additionally, the Confrontation Clause prohibits the introduction of "testimonial" statements by nontestifying witnesses, including those obtained by police officers during investigations.

The Sixth Amendment further grants defendants the right to be present during the trial, unless their behaviour warrants removal, and the right to testify in their own defence. The amendment ensures that convictions are only permissible when all elements of the crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the impartial jury.

In conclusion, the Sixth Amendment has played a pivotal role in shaping policing practices and criminal trials in the United States. By delineating the rights of defendants and shifting the investigative burden to the respective parties, it has transformed the landscape of criminal justice and contributed to the development of modern law enforcement.

The Tenth Amendment and federal police power

The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution states that:

> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This means that the federal government does not hold a general police power, but rather that the states have "police powers". These police powers are broad governmental regulatory powers to protect public health, safety, morality, peace, and order.

In Berman v. Parker, a 1954 US Supreme Court case, the Court stated that:

> Public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order... are some of the more conspicuous examples of the traditional application of the police power.

State legislatures can create laws to promote public safety, and use land-use restrictions to enhance the quality of life. For example, in a 2019 California Supreme Court case, T-Mobile, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, the Court stated that:

> The inherent local police power includes broad authority to determine, for purposes of the public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate uses of land.

The Tenth Amendment has been used to invalidate federal statutes that infringe on state police powers. For example, in Hammer v. Dagenhart, the Court found that the Child Labor Law, which prohibited the transportation in interstate commerce of goods produced using child labour, was an unwarranted invasion of the reserved powers of the states.

However, the federal government does exert police powers in certain circumstances. In Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., the Court upheld "War Prohibition", saying:

> That the United States lacks the police power, and that this was reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment, is true. But it is nonetheless true that when the United States exerts any of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, no valid objection can be based upon the fact that such exercise may be attended by the same incidents which attend the exercise by a State of its police power.

In this way, the Tenth Amendment and federal police power are closely linked, with the Amendment delineating the division of police power in the United States.

Frequently asked questions