Isabella Carter
The Fourth Amendment protects [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. While it does not specifically prohibit racial profiling, courts would not consider stops and searches based solely on a subject's race as reasonable seizures because there is no individualized reason for suspicion. The Fourteenth Amendment has also been invoked in the context of racial profiling, guaranteeing equal protection under the law. The Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship to Black people, are both powerful tools in the fight for racial justice and equality.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Amendments that cover racial profiling | Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Thirteenth Amendment |
| Fourth Amendment | Requires individual justification for searches and seizures |
| Fourteenth Amendment | Protects the rights and liberties of all Americans |
| Thirteenth Amendment | Used as a framework for combating racial profiling |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Fourth Amendment and unreasonable search and seizure
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens against "unreasonable searches and seizures". This amendment ensures that people are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, and that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. This means that the police cannot search a person or their property without a warrant or probable cause, and it also applies to arrests and evidence collection.
The Fourth Amendment was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified on December 15, 1791. It reflects the Framers' intent to avoid the unjust searches and seizures they experienced under English rule. The National Constitution Center explains that the Fourth Amendment aims to prevent the "evils of general warrants" by requiring each search or seizure to be authorized by a judge based on probable cause.
The Supreme Court has grappled with the interpretation of "reasonable" in the context of the Fourth Amendment for over two centuries. In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Court ruled that reasonable, articulable suspicion was sufficient grounds for a police officer to briefly stop and question a citizen. The Court clarified that this suspicion must be based on specific reasonable inferences rather than an officer's vague hunch.
The Fourth Amendment has been invoked in several cases involving racial profiling. In Whren v. United States (1996), the Court held that the Fourth Amendment was not violated when a minor traffic infraction was used as a pretext for a stop by law enforcement officers. This decision was criticized for potentially enabling the "pretextual" traffic stop, where minority group members are detained for routine traffic violations to conduct a more generalized criminal investigation. In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Court ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, without a warrant, is inadmissible in state courts.
While the Fourth Amendment provides important protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Court has clarified that the constitutional basis for objecting to intentionally discriminatory application of laws is the Equal Protection Clause, as seen in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, rather than solely the Fourth Amendment.
The Bill of Rights: Constitutional Amendments Explained
You may want to see also
Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection guarantee
Racial profiling by police and law enforcement has been reviewed by the courts on several constitutional grounds. One of the grounds is whether such profiling violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted soon after the Civil War and was meant to enforce absolute equality between races before the law. The Amendment's equal protection guarantee has been interpreted to preclude any state-imposed distinction based on race.
The Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection has been invoked in cases of gerrymandering of electoral districts and electoral practices that dilute and weaken the voting strength of minorities. For example, in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court adopted a principle from litigation attacking racial segregation in the schools of Boston, Massachusetts. The case concerned a state law requiring "equal but separate" facilities for rail transportation, mandating the separation of "white and colored" passengers. The Court's ruling in this case interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment as not intending to abolish distinctions based on color or race but rather to enforce political equality.
The equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been considered in relation to affirmative action policies. In the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Court considered the constitutionality of affirmative action. The Davis campus medical school admitted 100 students each year, setting aside 16 seats for disadvantaged minority students who were qualified but not necessarily as competitive as other applicants.
In addition to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures has also been invoked in challenges to racial profiling. Several courts have considered racial profiling as a potential violation of the Fourth Amendment, with some arguing that it constitutes an "unreasonable search and seizure." The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable suspicion is sufficient grounds for a police officer to briefly stop and question a citizen, but this suspicion must be based on specific reasonable inferences rather than a generalised "hunch."
Presidential Succession: Which Constitutional Amendment?
You may want to see also
Thirteenth Amendment and combating racial profiling
In the United States, racial profiling by police and law enforcement has been the subject of much scrutiny and debate. While some argue that the use of race as a factor in criminal profiling is a reflection of racially disparate crime rates, others contend that it is a form of discrimination that diverts scrutiny from genuine sources of potential threats.
William M. Carter Jr. proposes a Thirteenth Amendment framework for combating racial profiling. He argues that the Thirteenth Amendment provides both courts and Congress with the authority to address the legacy of inequality stemming from the slave system in the US. By focusing on the historical permanence of the assumption of innate Black criminality and its roots in the system of chattel slavery, Carter suggests that the Thirteenth Amendment offers a stronger constitutional basis for confronting racial profiling as a lingering vestige of slavery.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution abolished slavery and prohibited the enforcement of involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. The amendment states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." While the amendment does not explicitly mention racial profiling, it establishes the constitutional foundation for challenging practices that perpetuate the legacy of slavery, including racial profiling of African Americans.
In contrast to the Equal Protection Clause, which is often cited in discussions about racial profiling, the Thirteenth Amendment framework shifts the focus to the historical and systemic nature of racial profiling. It acknowledges that the widespread stigmatization of African Americans as predisposed towards criminality is a remnant of the slave system and, therefore, a form of slavery prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. By utilizing this framework, courts and Congress can address the ongoing effects of slavery and work towards dismantling the social and legal structures that perpetuate racial inequality.
While the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal protection under the law, the Thirteenth Amendment approach emphasizes the need to recognize and address the enduring impact of slavery on the treatment of African Americans in the criminal justice system. This includes the consideration of racial profiling as a use of race as an ex ante basis for criminal suspicion, which was deeply rooted in the historical subjugation of African Americans during slavery.
Amendment History: The 26th Amendment's Addition
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Equal Protection Clause and intentional discrimination
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment, is a critical component of the US Constitution, prohibiting state and federal governments from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This clause has been invoked in numerous cases to challenge racial profiling and intentional discrimination.
One notable case is Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. (1977), where a housing developer sued a Chicago suburb that refused to rezone land intended for low-income, racially integrated housing. While there was no explicit evidence of racial discrimination, the refusal disproportionately impacted African Americans and Hispanics. Justice Lewis Powell affirmed that "Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause."
The Equal Protection Clause sets a standard for scrutiny in cases of intentional discrimination. Justice Antonin Scalia emphasised identifying "fundamental" rights and "suspect" classes to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny. The Supreme Court has also clarified that the clause does not forbid policies that unintentionally lead to racial disparities, leaving room for legislative correction.
The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause intersects with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fifth Amendment in addressing intentional discrimination. Courts have developed frameworks for assessing intent claims, with Title VI's prohibition on discrimination rooted in the Equal Protection Clause. This clause has been invoked to challenge discriminatory application of laws, with subjective intentions playing no role in ordinary Fourth Amendment analysis.
While the Equal Protection Clause provides a basis for legal recourse, racial profiling remains a pervasive issue. Several courts have considered racial profiling as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection guarantee, and states have also enacted laws to address it. The debate surrounding racial profiling and intentional discrimination continues, with ongoing efforts to balance liberty, security, and equal protection under the law.
Massachusetts' Historic Amendment: Church and State Separation
You may want to see also
The First Amendment and freedom of worship
While there is no single constitutional amendment that covers racial profiling, several amendments have been cited in relation to the issue. Courts have considered the constitutional ramifications of racial profiling under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection guarantee.
Now, here is some information on the First Amendment and freedom of worship.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted on December 15, 1791, includes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, which together protect religious freedom and freedom of worship. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This means that the government is prohibited from establishing an official religion or interfering with an individual's religious beliefs and practices.
The Establishment Clause ensures governmental neutrality in matters of religion and prohibits Congress from passing laws that favour or establish any particular religion. This clause was important in the 1802 Danbury Baptist case, where Thomas Jefferson assured a religious minority that the government would not interfere in matters of religion and that there would be a separation between church and state.
The Free Exercise Clause protects the freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions, and prevents the government from making laws that compel the acceptance or practice of any religion, or that infringe upon an individual's religious beliefs and practices. This clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to broadly protect religious beliefs and opinions, ensuring that individuals have the right to believe and profess the religious doctrine of their choosing.
The First Amendment also protects other individual freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Amendment Power: Literacy Tests in Voting Abolished
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Racial profiling is the consideration of race by police and law enforcement when stopping and questioning citizens.
No, racial profiling is unconstitutional as it violates the U.S. Constitution's 4th and 14th Amendment protections. The 4th Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, while the 14th Amendment includes the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on race.
The 4th Amendment requires individual justification for searches and seizures, which is not the case when racial profiling is used as it relies on race instead of individualized suspicion.
Yes, law enforcement agencies may use criminal profiling, which focuses on the potential suspect's behaviour and other factors to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause for police action.
