Part 2- Crimes and Torts, Chapter 5: Criminal Law and Procedure, Doc 6

This excerpt addresses the exclusionary rule in the context of Fourth Amendment and international rights violations, as well as the balance of civil liberties under the USA PATRIOT Act and protections under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: Exclusionary Rule in Fourth Amendment and International Violations (Hudson and Sanchez-Llamas Cases) • • Knock-and-Announce Violations (Hudson v. Michigan): In Hudson, the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to knock-and-announce violations. Although officers must announce themselves, failing to do so does not require evidence suppression. The Court argued that this violation does not directly compromise the evidence’s legality, and civil remedies, internal police discipline, and increased police professionalism are adequate deterrents. International Rights Violations (Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon): In Sanchez-Llamas, the Court determined that the exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, which requires consular notification when foreign nationals are detained. Since the exclusionary rule is primarily an American remedy, the Court ruled that failing to inform foreign detainees of consular rights did not warrant suppression of evidence, as existing due process protections (e.g., Miranda rights) sufficiently protect detainees' rights. USA PATRIOT Act and Fourth Amendment Concerns • • Enhanced Surveillance Powers: Following the 9/11 attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act expanded federal surveillance capabilities in terrorism cases, allowing for broader searches, Internet and communication monitoring, and access to private records. Notably, it permits “sneak and peek” searches without immediate notification, “roving” wiretaps across devices, and mandatory reporting of large or suspicious bank deposits. Criticism and Renewals: Civil liberties advocates argue that the act’s broad definitions could lead to Fourth Amendment infringements, impacting privacy rights and enabling government overreach. Despite these concerns, most of the Act’s provisions have been made permanent, with renewals required for specific measures like roving wiretaps. Fifth and Sixth Amendments: Self-Incrimination and Right to Counsel • • Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights: The Fifth Amendment protects against forced self-incrimination. The landmark Miranda v. Arizona decision requires that suspects be informed of their rights to remain silent and to legal counsel during interrogations, making any un-Mirandized statements inadmissible in court. Berghuis v. Thompkins: In Berghuis, the Court held that suspects must explicitly invoke their Miranda rights to remain silent. If they do not clearly articulate this choice, any statements they make may be used as evidence, even if they initially remain silent. Key Legal Principles 1. Exclusionary Rule Limitations: The exclusionary rule, applied selectively to Fourth Amendment violations, does not automatically cover procedural violations like knock-and-announce breaches or international rights infractions under the Vienna Convention. 2. Civil Liberties in Terrorism Cases: The PATRIOT Act highlights the tension between national security and individual rights, expanding surveillance authority while raising ongoing debates about privacy protections. 3. Explicit Invocation of Miranda Rights: In custodial situations, suspects must clearly invoke their rights to remain silent, or their statements may be deemed voluntary and thus admissible, even if they are otherwise unresponsive. These cases and laws underscore the complexity of enforcing constitutional rights while accommodating practical law enforcement needs, especially in contexts like international relations and anti-terrorism efforts.