Constitutional Rights and the Criminal Justice System

Constitutional Rights and the Criminal Justice System
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Constitutional Rights and the Criminal Justice System
American constitutional rights remain fundamental to the activities of the criminal justice system. The constitution operates to allow rights and liberties to every US citizen. The fundamentals of the Bill of Rights have always encompassed the provision of civil rights and liberties to prospects, including freedom of assembly, religion, right to property, and press. The US has also made every attempt to ensure that the criminal justice system works within the confines of the law. Still, law enforcement officers have been accused of violating the same rights they are supposed to protect. Incidences of violation of individual rights as stipulated in the constitution have consistently attracted debates on what steps should be taken to uphold individual civil rights and liberties. In this analysis, emphasis is anchored on the provisions of the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments and their applications in the criminal justice system relative to two of the most monumental cases: Byrd v. the United States and Chavez v. Martinez. Understanding the constitutional rights and the limitations of such rights should help in eliminating some of the challenges that citizens face in the course of the law, as demonstrated in Byrd v. the United States and Chavez v. Martinez.
Chavez v. Martinez Case Brief
The Chavez v. Martinez remains a renowned case in the criminal justice system bearing the constitutional and the rule of law concerns that it raised. The briefing of Chavez v. Martinez is as follows.
Issue Presented
Oliverio Martinez (plaintiff) was shot in a struggle with police officers and later interrogated without the Miranda rights warning thereby raising the legality of the police actions. The issue in question in the Chavez v. Martinez was whether the right to be free from coercive questioning is violated when a person's statements are used in a different matter, other than a criminal case, pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Facts of the Case
Martinez was stopped by police officers who were investigating narcotics violations while riding his bicycle home from work. As the officers attempted to handcuff Martinez, a struggle ensued, leading to him being shot. The wound from the gunshot led to him losing his vision and rendered him permanently paralyzed (Waiton, 2019). Martinez later sued the police officers because both the search and the use of excessive force were unconstitutional. During the trial, the defendants introduced a taped confession from the plaintiff. The confession had been taken while Martinez was in the hospital seeking treatment from the gunshot wound. In the tape, Martinez confessed to having grabbed one of the officers' guns amidst the scuffle. Martinez claimed that the tape could not be admissible because he had not been Mirandized at the time of the confession. Both the trial and appellate courts agreed.
Summary and the Conclusion
The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment holding that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. The court determined that Martinez's Fifth Amendment rights had not been violated in a divided decision. Another panel of judges reasoned that Martinez might show a violation of a right if he could prove that his constitutional guarantee was put at risk. The position on whether Martinez can pursue a claim of liability for due process violation could be addressed on remand.
Chavez v. Martinez appears to be a true plurality at a glance. However, an extensive analysis of the findings should lie because the judges agree. All the justices approve remand as fair, considering that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof for any violations of his rights (Sosa, 2020). The justices further reminded Martinez that his rights had been violated in the issue of hospital questioning should he choose to pursue it. In his dissent, Justice Stevens noted that the confession at the hospital was obtained under the circumstances that mirror torture. Justice Ginsburg and Kennedy noted that the time and place of questioning cast doubts on the intentions of the officers. They noted that Martinez would have admitted anything so that he would receive a fast treatment.
Importance of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments
The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are important in addressing the rights of individuals in criminal justice issues. The Fourth Amendment is presently one of the most monumental constitutional provisions to the US populace (Montero, 2014). The Fourth Amendment protects the people from unreasonable seizures and searches and seizures. It is worth remarking that the Fourth Amendment protects not all searches and seizures. Only those that the law considers unreasonable warrant the protection. The consideration of whether a search or a seizure is reasonable is determined by a two-side analysis. On one side, it can be assessed based on the intrusion of an individual's right and a violation of the Fourth Amendment by extension. Conversely, the reasonable nature of seizure or search can be assessed based on a legitimate government interest such as public safety. The Fourth Amendment guides law enforcement officers on the right procedures to follow when searching. In most cases, the officer needs to provide a warrant that guarantees the search.
The importance of the Fourth Amendment to the public is extensive, thereby explaining some of the questions that the criminal justice system has raised against it recently. Primarily, seizures or searches inside homes that are not accompanied by warrants are extensively unreasonable (Montero, 2014). As noted, however, the officers can make exceptions, especially in cases where there are concerns over public safety. The other places covered by the Fourth Amendment include cars, persons, and schools. Recently, the Fourth Amendment has been employed to protect the public against undue surveillance by the authorities. The intelligence community has constantly been accused of invading individual privacies contrary to the provisions of the 4th Amendment.
The 5th Amendment has also showcased its value in protecting various individual rights. The 5th Amendment extends many due process protections to individuals entangled in the US justice system. Primarily, the 5the Amendment prohibits the government from depriving an individual of property, liberty, or life if the due process is not followed. In that sense, the government cannot confiscate property, kill, or imprison individuals arbitrarily (...