Constitutional rights have been a fundamental part of American society since 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified. The Bill of Rights includes ten amendments that were supposed to safeguard individual liberty. However, constitutional rights are very limited today. For example, the Patriot Act limits the rights found in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Civil forfeiture laws limit the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The death penalty also limits the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment along with the right to equal protection under the law. All of these limits mean that individual liberties are not protected as they should be and that the government’s power is being
…show more content…
Civil forfeiture laws allow police to seize, keep, and sell any property that they believe is involved in a crime (Asset Forfeiture Abuse). The owners of the property do not necessarily need to be arrested or convicted for their property to be taken away. This property could be money, cars, or even real estate. Forfeiture was originally created to crack down on large crime operations by cutting off their resources (Asset Forfeiture Abuse). However, today, instances of civil forfeiture are allegedly more motivated by profit than justice. In one court case, Cox v. Voyles, a woman had let her son borrow her truck, but police seized it because they had concluded that it had stolen parts (Cox v. Voyles). When the woman explained to the deputy who had seized the truck that it was not stolen and her son was innocent, the deputy simply told her that she would never get the truck back (Cox v. Voyles). There was no concrete evidence that the truck did in fact have stolen parts, but, the police seized it anyway and they reaped the profit. Cases like these center more on money to be gained than justice to be upheld. Civil forfeiture laws are a clear limit on the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and …show more content…
Miranda rights originated from Miranda v. Arizona, when the Supreme Court ruled that citizens arrested under state law must be informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to representation by an attorney before being interrogated while in police custody (Miranda v. Arizona). If a defendant has not been read their Miranda rights, any statements they make in an interrogation are inadmissible in court (Miranda v. Arizona). The requirement that Miranda rights be read before an interrogation protects a defendant’s rights to an attorney and their rights against self-incrimination. However, these rights do have limits. For example, law enforcement can question suspected terrorists without reading Miranda rights first (Perez). Miranda rights also do not need to be read if the defendant is not technically under police custody, or not technically being interrogated (Miranda v. Arizona). This means that the police can use anything a defendant says until they are under police custody and being interrogated, even without their Miranda rights read. This limits their Fifth Amendment rights to have an attorney and to not incriminate
Civil forfeiture laws allow police to seize, keep, and sell any property that they believe is involved in a crime (Asset Forfeiture Abuse). The owners of the property do not necessarily need to be arrested or convicted for their property to be taken away. This property could be money, cars, or even real estate. Forfeiture was originally created to crack down on large crime operations by cutting off their resources (Asset Forfeiture Abuse). However, today, instances of civil forfeiture are allegedly more motivated by profit than justice. In one court case, Cox v. Voyles, a woman had let her son borrow her truck, but police seized it because they had concluded that it had stolen parts (Cox v. Voyles). When the woman explained to the deputy who had seized the truck that it was not stolen and her son was innocent, the deputy simply told her that she would never get the truck back (Cox v. Voyles). There was no concrete evidence that the truck did in fact have stolen parts, but, the police seized it anyway and they reaped the profit. Cases like these center more on money to be gained than justice to be upheld. Civil forfeiture laws are a clear limit on the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and …show more content…
Miranda rights originated from Miranda v. Arizona, when the Supreme Court ruled that citizens arrested under state law must be informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to representation by an attorney before being interrogated while in police custody (Miranda v. Arizona). If a defendant has not been read their Miranda rights, any statements they make in an interrogation are inadmissible in court (Miranda v. Arizona). The requirement that Miranda rights be read before an interrogation protects a defendant’s rights to an attorney and their rights against self-incrimination. However, these rights do have limits. For example, law enforcement can question suspected terrorists without reading Miranda rights first (Perez). Miranda rights also do not need to be read if the defendant is not technically under police custody, or not technically being interrogated (Miranda v. Arizona). This means that the police can use anything a defendant says until they are under police custody and being interrogated, even without their Miranda rights read. This limits their Fifth Amendment rights to have an attorney and to not incriminate