Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

As Eugene noted, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit recently held that a child pornography conviction had to be reversed because the evidence was gathered in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Steve Vladeck has a post discussing the important and potentially certworthy issue in the case, which is whether a violation of that statute can trigger the exclusionary rule at all.

I confess that my initial reaction was skepticism. Consider Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon:

We have applied the exclusionary rule primarily to deter constitutional violations. [In t]he few cases in which we have suppressed evidence for statutory violations the excluded evidence arose directly out of statutory violations that implicated important Fourth and Fifth Amendment interests.

Maybe the Posse Comitatus Act can be shown to implicate important Fourth and Fifth Amendment interests, but the Ninth Circuit didnt really show that, and it isnt obvious to me.

More generally, it seems to me that current exclusionary rule doctrine can be read in a couple of different ways:

One is the deterrence theory: Exclusion is appropriate when it seems like theres intentional and/or widespread and/or generally problematic illegality by the government. This refrain appears in a bunch of the cases, and its how the Ninth Circuit framed the analysis. Its not clear, however, that the analysis automatically applies in statutory cases (see above).

A second is the slow destruction theory: Under this theory, the exclusionary rule is unfounded and deleterious, and the rule and its works should be slowly destroyed. Some people read the Courts exclusionary rule precedents to be implicitly working toward this theory. It is not really put forward by the Court as a first-order justification, although quite a few of the opinions do frame their analysis by questioning the rules basis or justification.

Until recently, I would have ended this list there. But I have recently begun to give some credence to a third account of exclusionary rule doctrine put forward by my friend Richard Re in an article called The Due Process Exclusionary Rule.

Richard argues that today many searches and seizures should be seen as part of the criminal process and that the exclusionary rule is thus justified by the Due Process Clause, which forbids a conviction obtained through illegal process. While I am not yet sure that I agree with this view, I think it deserves serious consideration, and is the best alternative to the slow destruction theory that is on offer.

Here is what the article says about statutory violations (footnotes omitted):

Read the rest here:
Volokh Conspiracy: What the posse comitatus case might mean for the future of the exclusionary rule

A school official, this one the superintendent in Litchfield, is not having his contract renewed by the school board. Why? The school board, officially, won't say.

"I can't disclose or discuss the contents of the board's discussion, or the rationale behind the vote," said school board chairman Dennis Miller, sounding very much like someone pleading the Fifth Amendment before Congress

Chairman Miller and a majority of the board have decided this is a "personnel matter" and therefore not for the public's ears.

Well, of course it is a personnel matter. But it involves a public employee, paid for with taxpayer dollars and not only responsible to the citizens of the school district, but in charge of the district.

Yet again, we have a case where elected officials, acting on the public's behalf, refuse to tell the public the reason for their actions. Such cases are happening too frequently.

The public has limited, but powerful, recourse. It can decide not to renew the employment "contracts" of school board members.

Some argue that they are elected to represent the public, which needs to just trust their judgment. But without knowing their reasoning for such important decisions as the hiring or firing of key personnel, how is that judgment to be assessed?

To his credit, board member John York, one of the two board members who opposed not renewing the contract, said it was more personality than anything else.

Supt. Brian Cochrane also spoke out to the Union Leader. And the world, surprise, didn't end.

The public doesn't need great specificity or gory details in such cases. But officials like Miller who won't explain their actions either don't care to take the time to do so or they really don't have a strong case in the first place.

Here is the original post:
Public be damned Litchfield latest example

Invoking your Fifth Amendment rights is a sign of guilt, according to one Florida police officer.

TechDirt.com reports that one of its readers recently sent the website a video (below) of two people filming an area where prisoners are taken in and out of the Duval County courthouse in Jacksonville, Florida.

This area is known as a "sally port," and is in full view of a public sidewalk where the cameramen were filming from.

However, two officers from the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office recently tried to stop the men from filming.

In the video, one of the officers tells the cameramen this is a "secure area" and asks why they are filming.

One cameraman says, "I am filming in a public space.

The officer then wants to know the cameraman's name and why he refuses to tell him (the officer) why he is filming.

According to TheFreeThoughtProject.com, when the cameraman says he wants to "remain silent," the police officer appears to laugh and says, "You must be doing something wrong if you invoke your rights."

The officer then doubles down on his bizarre claim and refuses to show the cameraman the statute that bans people from filming prisoners entering and leaving the sally port.

Eventually, the officers leave the scene and allow the men to film.

See the original post here:
Cop Says 'You Must Be Doing Something Wrong if You Invoke Your Rights' (Video)

PREMIUM LEGAL RESOURCES LEGAL FORMS ASK A LAWYER

'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'

The Fifth Amendment 'can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used.' Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 44-45 ('72). A reasonable belief that information concerning income or assets might be used to establish criminal failure to file a tax return can support a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. See U.S. v. Rendahl, 746 F.2d 553, 55-56 (9th Cir.'84).

The only way the Fifth Amendment can be asserted as to testimony is on a question-by-question basis. Rendahl, 746 F.2d at 555, citing with approval U.S. v. Bell, 448 F.2d 40, 42 (9th Cir.'71) (Fifth Amendment challenge premature on appeal from enforcement order; appellant must present himself for questioning after enforcement and as to each question elect to raise or not to raise the defense).

The appropriate device for compelling answers to incriminating questions is a government grant of use immunity. See Sharp, 920 F.2d at 1172.

Google+

More:
"Fifth Amendment" Defined & Explained - Law

September 9, 2014, 2:42 PM Last updated: Tuesday, September 9, 2014, 3:45 PM

AP

Gov. Chris Christie

Governor Christie said Tuesday he is not pleased that several questions remain unanswered a year after local access lanes to the George Washington Bridge were closed tying up traffic in Fort lee for more than four days.

Chief among those questions is who ordered cones to be placed across the access lanes and why.

Christie was asked by a reporter during a news conference in Camden if he was satisfied by the answers obtained so far by the various investigations into the matter including one he called for by a team of lawyers that has so far cost taxpayers $7.2 million.

Related: GWB probe: New email exchange raises more questions

Some people havent answered questions, so I guess the answer would be no, Christie told a roomful of reporters.

The internal investigation Christie ordered of his office resulted in a report that found the governor did not know about the lane closures and placed the blame on Bridget Anne Kelly, the deputy chief of staff Christie fired after The Record reported in January that she sent the email, Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee. The report also blamed David Wildstein, the former Christie appointee at the Port Authority, who Kelly sent the e-mail to. It raised questions about Bill Stepien, Christies two-time campaign manager though it didnt offer any conclusive evidence to tie him to the closures.

Wildstein provided documents to a legislative panel investigating the incident but cited the Fifth Amendment when he appeared before lawmakers, refusing to answer questions including whether he worked at the Port Authority. Both Kelly and Stepien successfully fought legislative subpoenas seeking documents in court by arguing their constitutional right to protect themselves against self incrimination.

More:
GWB probe: Christie says he's not satisfied with unanswered questions

September 9, 2014 4:45 PM Share with others:

By Torsten Ove / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A federal appeals court today overturned the conviction of a Texas man on drug charges, saying the government violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during his trial here.

Gathon Shannon, 48, of Houston, described by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration as a courier in a Texas-to-Beaver County cocaine ring, was convicted by a federal jury and sentenced in 2013 to 20 years.

But a three-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that the prosecution violated his rights in cross-examining him about his silence following his arrest in 2011.

The circuit judges vacated the sentence imposed by U.S. District Judge Alan Bloch and ordered that Mr. Shannon receive a new trial.

Mr. Shannon was among a group of accused conspirators targeted by the U.S. attorney's Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force, which said the ring supplied much of Beaver County's cocaine demand from 2009 to 2011.

Read this article:
Texas man's conviction overturned because of Fifth Amendment violation

The Kansas Supreme Court has upheld a Wyandotte County district court's dismissal of indictments against an attorney for the Board of Public Utilities of Kansas City, Kan.

The high court overturned a Court of Appeals reversal, agreeing with the district court that Robert Turner's constitutional right against self-incrimination had been violated during the grand jury proceedings.

A citizen-called grand jury in 2008 indicted Turner on two counts of theft and 55 counts of presenting a false claim, which was based on nonitemized vouchers totaling about $400,000 he submitted for work he did for BPU.

The grand jury had been called to look into allegations of misappropriation of public funds by directors of BPU, an arm of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County.

It was during testimony before the grand jury that William Delaney a special agent of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation who was assigned to serve as the investigator for the grand jury made repeated suggestions that Turner was somehow involved in the 1989 unsolved murder of Chuck Thompson, a Kansas City, Kan., politician and lawyer.

Delaney told jurors he had been investigating the case for years, and that he would be asking questions of people he thought were involved during the BPU probe.

The grand jury subpoenaed Turner, who gave notice in advance that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Delaney questioned him anyway, asking questions related not just to the BPU probe but also the Thompson murder. Turner, court records show, addressed about 100 or more questions by invoking his right against self-incrimination.

The district court, on appeal, ruled that Delaney's continual leading questioning and remarks to jurors suggesting that Turner's silence meant he had something to hide were prejudicial to Turner, and dismissed the indictments.

The Court of Appeals overturned the decision, saying a person can be compelled to appear before a grand jury and be asked questions to which he can invoke constitutional protections on a question-by-question basis. The appeals court said Turner had not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by Delaney's methods.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

Visit link:
Kansas Supreme Court: Grand jury violated man's Fifth Amendment rights

Cristin Milioti in The Good Wife - Julianna Margulies
The Fifth Amendment of United States Constitution protects individuals from being forced to incriminate (be accused of a crime) themselves. Cristin #39;s charact...

By: Mario Rustan

Visit link:
Cristin Milioti in The Good Wife - Julianna Margulies - Video

In the upcoming general election, voters will have many important decisions to make, one of which might make it easier to prosecute sex offenders.

The action, Missouri Evidence in Sexual Crimes Against Minors or Amendment 2, would allow prosecutors who are trying a case against an alleged child sex offender to use relevant past criminal activity as evidence against the defendants.

This means that if an alleged sex offender had been accused, but not found guilty, of a past crime, a prosecutor could still introduce the record of that accusation to the court as evidence against the defendant under Amendment 2.

The amendment has been seen as controversial, as it might make it easier to reach a guilty verdict in those types of cases.

Due to some Supreme Court decisions, prosecuting attorneys were unable to try many cases of child sexual abuse in our state, Rep. John McCaherty, R-Mo., said. As a member of the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee, I see the amendment as a positive step to give prosecutors the tools they need to protect our children, and to see those that prey on them prosecuted. There has been no opposition to this legislation, and I was proud to sponsor it.

McCaherty is the primary sponsor of the amendment, which recently received approval from the Missouri House of Representatives to be placed on the ballot in November.

McCaherty said he felt the bill would address an important gap in Missouris justice system, giving prosecutors a powerful tool to imprison sex offenders.

He said there should be no violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which forbids double jeopardy, secures the right to a grand jury and protects against self-incrimination, or the Sixth Amendment, which includes the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the rights to a lawyer and an impartial jury and the right to know who your accusers are.

Of course there have to be safeguards in place as well, so a defendant can receive a fair trial, McCaherty said. Not all evidence is relevant to every trial. This is the responsibility of the judge to determine the relevance in each case.

The amendment has gained local attention and a Protect Missouri Children Committee formed to support the measure. The group believes that the amendment will protect children and aid in putting dangerous criminals behind bars.

Go here to see the original:
New bill a powerful tool to imprison sex offenders

Fifth Amendment,amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that articulates procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of the criminally accused and to secure life, liberty, and property. For the text of the Fifth Amendment, see below.

Similar to the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment is divided into five clauses, representing five distinct, yet related, rights. The first clause specifies that [n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. This grand jury provision requires a body to make a formal presentment or indictment of a person accused of committing a crime against the laws of the federal government. The proceeding is not a trial but rather an ex parte hearing (i.e., one in which only one party, the prosecution, presents evidence) to determine if the government has enough evidence to carry a case to trial. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence that an offense was committed, it issues an indictment, which then permits a trial. The portion of the clause pertaining to exceptions in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia is a corollary to Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power [t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. Combined, they justify the use of military courts for the armed forces, thus denying military personnel the same procedural rights afforded civilians.

The second section is commonly referred to as the double jeopardy clause, and it protects citizens against a second prosecution after an acquittal or a conviction, as well as against multiple punishments for the same offense. Caveats to this provision include permissions to try persons for civil and criminal aspects of an offense, conspiring to commit as well as to commit an offense, and separate trials for acts that violate laws of both the federal and state governments, although federal laws generally suppress prosecution by the national government if a person is convicted of the same crime in a state proceeding.

The third section is commonly referred to as the self-incrimination clause, and it protects persons accused of committing a crime from being forced to testify against themselves. In the U.S. judicial system a person is presumed innocent, and it is the responsibility of the state (or national government) to prove guilt. Like other pieces of evidence, once presented, words can be used powerfully against a person; however, words can be manipulated in a way that many other objects cannot. Consequently, information gained from sobriety tests, police lineups, voice samples, and the like is constitutionally permissible while evidence gained from compelled testimony is not. As such, persons accused of committing crimes are protected against themselves or, more accurately, how their words may be used against them. The clause, therefore, protects a key aspect of the system as well as the rights of the criminally accused.

The fourth section is commonly referred to as the due process clause. It protects life, liberty, and property from impairment by the federal government. (The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, protects the same rights from infringement by the states.) Chiefly concerned with fairness and justice, the due process clause seeks to preserve and protect fundamental rights and ensure that any deprivation of life, liberty, or property occurs in accordance with procedural safeguards. As such, there are both substantive and procedural considerations associated with the due process clause, and this has influenced the development of two separate tracks of due process jurisprudence: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process pertains to the rules, elements, or methods of enforcementthat is, its procedural aspects. Consider the elements of a fair trial and related Sixth Amendment protections. As long as all relevant rights of the accused are adequately protectedas long as the rules of the game, so to speak, are followedthen the government may, in fact, deprive a person of his life, liberty, or property. But what if the rules are not fair? What if the law itselfregardless of how it is enforcedseemingly deprives rights? This raises the controversial spectre of substantive due process rights. It is not inconceivable that the content of the law, regardless of how it is enforced, is itself repugnant to the Constitution because it violates fundamental rights. Over time, the Supreme Court has had an on-again, off-again relationship with liberty-based due process challenges, but it has generally abided by the principle that certain rights are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (Palko v. Connecticut [1937]), and as such they are afforded constitutional protection. This, in turn, has led to the expansion of the meaning of the term liberty. What arguably began as freedom from restraint has transformed into a virtual cornucopia of rights reasonably related to enumerated rights, without which neither liberty nor justice would exist. For example, the right to an abortion, established in Roe v. Wade (1973), grew from privacy rights, which emerged from the penumbras of the constitution.

Read the original here:
Fifth Amendment (United States Constitution ...