Today we look at the due process clause of the 14th amendment and how it applies to rights of the accused and privacy.
Today we look at the due process clause of the 14th amendment and how it applies to rights of the accused and privacy. We start by reviewing what the due process clause is (1:00) and then look at how it applies to the 4th (1:50), 5th(2:22), and 6th(2:52) amendments. We discuss the required case of Gideon v. Wainwright (3:12) before turning our attention to privacy. Although not specifically mentioned, privacy is an implied right (4:46). Finally, we look at two cases that support that idea Griswold v Connecticut (5:38) and Roe v. Wade(7:00).
Today’s question of the day (8:34): Can your cell phone tracking data be used against you?
Thank you for listening to The APsolute RecAP: United States Government Edition!
(AP is a registered trademark of the College Board and is not affiliated with The APsolute RecAP. Copyright 2020 - The APsolute RecAP, LLC. All rights reserved.)
Website:
EMAIL:
Follow Us:
Hi and welcome to the APsolute Recap: US Government Edition. Today’s episode will recap Due Process
Lets Zoom out:
Unit 3 - Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
Topic-3.8-3.9
Big idea - Liberty and Order
In our previous episode we talked about selective incorporation, and applying the protection of liberties listed in the Bill of Rights to the states, as well as to the federal government. Today we will look more closely at the 14th amendment’s due process clause which allowed that to happen. In particular we will discuss the application to the rights of the accused and the matter of privacy.
Lets Zoom in:
As I’m sure you recall from your history class, the 14th amendment was one of three amendments passed during Reconstruction designed to give rights and protections to the newly freed enslaved people. The part of the 14th amendment that we are interested in is the due process clause which reads, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” We discussed this in the last episode with regard to the 2nd Amendment. Today we are going to look at the rights of the accused, and how the due process clause applies to the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.
Let’s begin by considering the 4th amendment, which offers protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. It is this amendment that requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant in many instances, though not all, before searching you or your private property. With time, this protection has also come to include technology such as your cell phone and metadata as well. A violation of your 4th amendment right will result in the disqualification of any evidence against you that was unlawfully obtained. In a similar vein, there is the Miranda rule, which came out of the Supreme Court Case Miranda v Arizona, that upon being arrested you have the 5th and 6th amendment rights not to incriminate yourself and have an attorney present. This case led to the Miranda Rule, which we frequently hear depicted in criminal shows on tv “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney.” However, the court has ruled an exception to this rule in the case of public safety.
Another important aspect of the due process clause deals with your 6th amendment right to an attorney. Originally, defendants were required to either supply their own attorney or defend themselves, except in the instance of a capital case, for which an attorney would be provided if you couldn’t afford one. The required court case that changed this rule was Gideon v Wainwright. The case involved Clarence Gideon who was charged with felony breaking and entering in the state of Florida. When he appeared in court he was unable to pay for an attorney and had to defend himself. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. He filed a petition with the Florida State Court saying his 6th amendment rights had been violated. The case was decided by the Supreme Court two years later in 1963. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the 6th amendment right to an attorney was an obligation the states must provide as a result of the 14th amendment.
Another example of the due process clause protecting our civil liberties is the right to privacy. As an important side note, there is a difference between civil rights and liberties - and in this episode we have discussed both. A civil right is a protection guaranteed by the government, such as the right to an attorney promised by the 5th and 14th amendments. A civil liberty is a protection from the government, such as the case of the 4th amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Which brings us back to privacy. Technically, privacy isn’t a right provided by the Constitution, but it has been interpreted to be covered under the due process clause of the 14th amendment as well. This interpretation of the right to privacy has been controversial as it was the reasoning behind the 1973 Roe v Wade decision. However, before we can discuss that case, we need to understand a decision that came earlier.
In 1965, the Supreme Court heard the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. The question before the court dealt with marital privacy. In 1879, the state of Connecticut passed a law banning most forms of contraception. The case involved a gynecologist associated with the Yale medical school, Lee Buxton, and the head of Connecticut chapter of Planned Parenthood, Estelle Griswold. Working together, the two established a clinic where many married couples came for advice and assistance with birth control, even though it was against the law. When the case came before the Supreme Court, it held that even though not specifically mentioned in the Con stitution, that privacy was implied in the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth amendment rights. The Court also held that the right to privacy within marriage predated the Constitution, and therefore, the Connecticut law was unconstitutional. Much like DC v Heller paved the way for McDonald v Chicago, which we covered in a previous episode, Griswold would lay the foundation for the still controversial case of Roe v. Wade.
Less than a decade later, in 1973, the Court took up the case of Jane Roe (a play on Doe) vs the District Attorney of Dallas county Texas, Henry Wade. The issue: a woman’s right to an abortion. While other states had began to allow abortions starting in 1967, Texas was not one of them. At the time, abortions were only allowed in Texas in order to save the life of the mother. Roe argued that the right to an abortion was protected by the Constituion. The Court agreed. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the due process clause of the 14th amendment protects against state action with regard to the right to privacy, and that an abortion falls under that purview. The Court admitted that states had the right to balance the right to privacy with the health of the mother and “potentiality of human life,”, however, a state law that outright banned abortition without consideration of the stage of pregnancy or interests of the woman was a violation of the right to privacy. To this day, the case remains one of the most contested cases the Court has ruled on.
To recap……
The 14th amendment’s due process clause has been applied to the states to include protections to the rights of the accused as well as the right to privacy. Protections from unreasonable searches, the right to remain silent, and the right to have an attorney provided to you all are the result of the due process clause being incorporated. Furthermore, the right to privacy, which is not explicitly stated, is implied with other amendments and is therefore, considered protected from infringement as well.
Coming up next on the Apsolute RecAP US Gov Edition: Social Movements and the Equal Protection Clause
Today’s Question of the day is about cell phone tracking
Question: Can your cell phone tracking data be used against you?