that he has "probable cause"-good reason to believe either that the individual involved has committed a crime, or that he has in his possession evidence related to a crime. Even with a warrant, police cannot typically break into a private home without first demanding entrance, unless such action is permissible under a "no-knock" statute authorizing such entry where there is a reasonable expectation that evidence is being destroyed.

The courts have ruled that in some instances it is permissible to arrest a man or conduct a search without a warrant. For example, if a felony is committed in the presence of a police officer, he has the right to arrest the criminal immediately, without waiting to get an arrest warrant; and, if the policeman makes the arrest, he may then search the suspect and a limited area surrounding him to prevent the suspect from destroying evidence or seizing a weapon. Furthermore, evidence in plain view, whether or not in this area, may be seized.

The courts have also permitted the police to search certain vehicles without a warrant on the grounds that if not when the arrest is made, the vehicle may be many miles away when the policeman returns with his warrant.

The courts have frequently wrestled with the problem of determining what is required to constitute probable cause for a search or an arrest. Generally speaking, the criterion has been one of common sense: Would a reasonable person consider, on the available evidence, that there was a good basis for believing that the person to be arrested had committed a crime, or that the place to be searched contained the evidence of a crime? The Supreme Court, in considering whether a policeman who "stopped and frisked" a citizen without reason to believe that the individual concerned had committed a particular crime had met this test, ruled that the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit such a search if it was reasonable on the basis of the police officer's experience and the demeanor of the individual who was frisked.

Frequently courts have been confronted with the question of what constitutes a search. It has been held that no search has been conducted when a police officer overhears a conversation through a closed door, or when, through an open window, he sees a crime being committed. Intentional and prolonged eavesdropping, however, has been held unreasonable where it "subverts normal expectations of privacy."

Wiretapping-listening in on a telephone conversation by mechanical or electronic means-and electronic "bugging" have been held "search and seizures" under the terms of the Fourth Amendment and therefore they are subject to the same limitations of probable cause and reasonableness, and require a warrant for their use. Congress has enacted legislation which limits the use of wiretapping and bugging to the investigation of specific crimes and restricts those officials permitted to authorize them. The Supreme Court has held, moreover, that electronic surveillance of "domestic subversives" by the federal government is unconstitutional unless a warrant is obtained, even when authorized by the Attorney General in the interests of national security.

Evidence secured by means of an unlawful search and seizure cannot be used in either a State or Federal prosecution. Thus, the adage that "one is innocent until proven guilty" in practice means "until proven guilty by evidence obtained in accordance with constitutional guarantees."

AMENDMENT V

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 offense 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.

Grand jury:

The Fifth Amendment requires that before a person is tried in Federal court for an "infamous" crime, he must first be indicted by a grand jury. The grand jury's duty is to make sure that there is probable cause to believe that the accused person is guilty. This prevents a person from being subjected to a trial when there is not enough proof that he has committed a crime.

An infamous crime is a felony (a crime for which a sentence of more than 1 year's imprisonment can be given) or a lesser offense which can be punished by confinement in a penitentiary or at hard labor. An indictment is not required for a trial by court-martial or by other military tribunal. Also, the constitutional requirement of grand jury indictment does not apply to trials in State courts. However, where States do use grand juries in their criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court has ruled that such juries must be free of racial bias.

Double jeopardy:

The Fifth Amendment also guarantees the individual that he will not be placed in double jeopardy; that is, that he will not be tried before a Federal or State court more than once for the same crime. The Supreme Court has also stated that, under the due process safeguard of the Fourteenth Amendment, State courts may not harass defendants by successive prosecutions for the same act of misconduct.

Double jeopardy occurs when the second trial is for the same offense as the first. A second trial can occur, however, when the first trial results in a "mistrial," for instance, when the jury cannot agree on a verdict, or when a second trial is ordered by an appellate court.

Double jeopardy does not arise when a single act violates both Federal and State laws and the defendant is exposed to prosecution in both Federal and State courts. Nor does a criminal prosecution in either a State or Federal court exempt the defendant from being sued for damages by anyone who is harmed by his criminal act. Furthermore, a defendant may be prosecuted more than once for the same conduct if it involved the commission of more than one crime. For instance, if a person kills three victims at the same time and place, he can be tried separately for each slaying.

Self-incrimination:

The right that every person has not to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself applies to Federal proceedings and to State proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment, and signifies that no one is obliged to provide answers to questions tending to convict him of a crime. Such questions may be asked at the very earliest stages of the investigation of a crime and, thus, the Supreme Court has ruled that when an individual is interrogated in the "custody" of the police the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment apply.

"Custodial interrogation" can extend to questioning outside the police station and has even been held to include police questioning of a defendant in his own bed in his own boarding house.

To insure that the right against self-incrimination is protected, the Court has ruled that citizens must be warned prior to custodial interrogation of their right to remain silent, that what they say may be used against them in court, and that they have a right to counsel which will be furnished them. Failure to give these warnings results in any statements obtained by the questioning being inadmissible in later criminal proceedings.

Although an accused may waive his rights under the Fifth Amendment, he must know what he is doing and must not be forced to confess. Any confession obtained by use of force or threat will be excluded from the evidence presented at the trial. Furthermore, if a defendant or a witness fails to invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to a question on the witness stand, such a failure may operate as a waiver of the right and he will not be permitted to object later to a court's admitting his statement into evidence on the basis that it was self-incriminating.

Courts have ruled that the guarantee against self-incrimination applies only to "testimonial" actions. Thus, it has been held that handwriting samples, blood tests and appearance, to include repeating words in a police lineup, do not violate the Fifth Amendment.

Courts have ruled in addition that the Fifth Amendment prohibits both federal and state prosecutors and judges from commenting on the refusal of a defendant to take the witness stand in his own defense. The refusal of witnesses to testify to matters which could subject them to criminal prosecutions at a later date has also been upheld. The courts have recognized, however, a limited right of the government to question employees about the performance of official duties and have upheld the dismissals of such employees for their refusal to answer questions so related.

Government regulations which required registration of items such as highly dangerous weapons or narcotics which were a crime to possess have also been invalidated on the grounds that they require information which may be used in a criminal prosecution against the person who registers.

Due Process:

The words "due process of law" express the fundamental ideas of American justice. A due process clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments as a restraint upon the Federal and State Governments, respectively.

The clause affords protection against arbitrary and unfair procedures in judicial or administrative proceedings which could affect the personal and property rights of a citizen. Notice of a hearing or trial which is timely and adequately informs the accused of the charges against him is a basic concept included in "due process." The opportunity to present evidence in one's own behalf before an impartial judge or jury, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by legally-obtained evidence and to have the verdict supported by the evidence presented are other rights repeatedly recognized within the protection of the due process clause.

The due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments also provide other basic protections whereby the State and Federal Governments are prevented from adopting arbitrary and unreasonable legislation or other measures which would violate individual rights.

80-587 0-72- -3

Thus, constitutional limitations are imposed on governmental interference with important individual liberties such as the freedom to enter into contracts, to engage in a lawful occupation, to marry, and to move without unnecessary restraints. Governmental restrictions placed on one's liberties must be reasonable and consistent with due process in order to be valid.

Just Compensation:

The Fifth Amendment requires that, whenever the Government takes an individual's property, the property acquired must be taken for public use, and the full value thereof paid to the owner. Thus, property cannot be taken by the Federal Government from one person simply to give it to another. However, the Supreme Court has held that it is permissible to take private property for such purposes as urban renewal, even though ultimately the property taken will be returned to private ownership, since the taking is really for the benefit of the community as a whole. The property does not have to be physically taken from the owner. If governmental action leads to a lower value of private property, that may also constitute a "taking" and therefore require payment of compensation. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that the disturbance of the egg-laying habits of chickens on a man's poultry farm caused by the noise of low-level flights by military aircraft from a nearby airbase, lessens the value of that farm and that, accordingly, the landowner is entitled to receive compensation equal to his loss.

AMENDMENT VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Criminal Trials:

This Amendment sets forth specific rights guaranteed to persons facing criminal prosecution. Its guarantees apply to both the Federal courts and the State courts by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

The right to speedy and public trial requires that the accused be brought to trial without unnecessary delay, and that the trial be open to the public. Intentional or negligent delay by the prosecution which prejudices the defendant's right to defend himself has been held as grounds for dismissal of the charges. The Supreme Court has ruled that delay in prosecution was not justified by the defendant's confinement on an earlier conviction because he should have temporarily been released for purposes of trial on the later charge.

Trial by an impartial jury supplements the earlier guarantee contained in Article III of the Constitution. The requirement that the jury have 12 members and that these must reach a unanimous verdict were derived from the common law and are not specifically accorded by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that state juries need not necessarily be composed of 12 members and actually has approved a state statutory scheme providing for only six. Moreover, the Court has ruled that jury verdicts in state courts need not necessarily be unanimous. The right to jury trial

does not apply to trials for petty offenses, which the Supreme Court has suggested as those punishable by six months' confinement or less. In all trials where a jury is used it must be impartially selected, and no one can be excluded from jury service merely because of his race, class, or sex.

The Sixth Amendment requirement that a person "be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" means that an accused person must be given notice in what respects it is claimed he has broken the law, in order that he may have an opportunity to prepare his defense. This also means that the crime must be established by statute before hand so that all persons are aware of what is illegal before they act. The statute must not be so vague or unclear that it does not inform people of the exact nature of the crime. Generally, the accused is entitled to have all witnesses against him present their evidence orally in court; and subject to certain exceptions, hearsay evidence cannot be used in Federal criminal trials. Moreover, the accused is entitled to the aid of the court in having compulsory process issued― usually a subpena-which will order into court as witnesses these persons whose testimony he desires at the trial.

Finally, the Sixth Amendment provides a right to be represented by counsel. For many years, this was interpreted to mean only that the defendant had a right to be represented by a lawyer if he could afford one. The Supreme Court held in 1963, however, that the Amendment imposed an affirmative obligation on the part of the Federal and State governments to provide at public expense legal counsel for those who could not afford it, in order that their cases could be adequately represented to the court. The Supreme Court has held that this right extends even to cases involving "petty offenses" if there is a chance that a jail sentence might result. The indigent were held to have such a right at any "critical stage of the adjudicatory process." Thus, courts have accorded this right at initial periods of questioning, at police lineups, and at all stages of the trial process. In addition indigents were given the right to a free copy of their trial transcript for purposes of appeal of their conviction. Congress enacted the Criminal Justice Acts of 1964 and 1970 to implement this right to counsel by establishing a federal defender system to represent those defendants who could not afford legal counsel. Most state legislatures have ́enacted similar measures.

AMENDMENT VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, then according to the rules of the common law.

Civil Trials:

The Seventh Amendment applies only to Federal civil trials and not to civil suits in State courts. Except as provided by local federal court rules, if a case is brought in a Federal court and a money judgment is sought which exceeds $20, the party bringing the suit and the defendant are entitled to have the controversy decided by the unanimous verdict of a 12-man jury.