State Law: Violating The Bill Of Rights?

The Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, guarantees broad personal liberties. It includes the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to due process, among others. While the Bill of Rights initially did not apply to state laws, the 14th Amendment and court decisions under the doctrine of incorporation have since extended many of these rights to state and local governments. Citizens can take legal action against state or local government officials who violate their rights under the Bill of Rights through Section 1983 claims, with Bivens claims providing recourse for violations by federal officials.

State laws and the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, and sets requirements for issuing warrants. The Fourth Amendment states that:

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment was introduced in 1789 by James Madison, and by December 15, 1791, it had been ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the states. On March 1, 1792, it was officially announced as part of the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment's protections extend to intrusions on the privacy of individuals as well as physical locations. The extent of an individual's protection under the Fourth Amendment depends on the location of the search or seizure. Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are generally considered unreasonable, but there are exceptions to this rule. For example, a warrantless search may be lawful if an officer is given consent to search, or if the search is incident to a lawful arrest.

In the context of vehicles, an officer may lawfully search any area of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that it contains evidence of criminal activity. An officer may also conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop, even if they do not believe that any occupant is involved in criminal activity.

The Fourth Amendment applies to state and local governments, as well as the federal government. This application was established in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

State laws and the Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides several protections for people accused of crimes. It states that serious criminal charges must be started by a grand jury, and a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence (double jeopardy) or be compelled to be a witness against themselves. It also protects the right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (fair procedures and trials) and the right to not have property taken away without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to provide two main protections: procedural due process, which requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, and substantive due process, which protects certain fundamental rights from government interference. The Supreme Court has also held that the Due Process Clause prohibits vague laws and includes an implied equal protection requirement similar to the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

While the Fifth Amendment applies to federal criminal proceedings, it does not provide a right to a grand jury for criminal charges in state court. States are free to abolish grand juries, and many have replaced them with preliminary hearings. However, the amendment's protections against self-incrimination have been extended beyond the courtroom by the Supreme Court, and law enforcement must make suspects aware of their Miranda rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

In the context of state laws, it is important to note that citizens can bring civil rights claims against state and local government officials for violations of their constitutional rights. Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. Section 1983) allows individuals to sue for violations of rights conferred by the U.S. Constitution or federal laws. This provides a mechanism for holding government officials accountable and ensuring that state laws and actions do not violate the protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

State laws and the Sixth Amendment

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants eight different rights, including the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury consisting of jurors from the state and district in which the crime was alleged to have been committed. The right to a jury applies only to offenses in which the penalty is imprisonment for longer than six months.

The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The one protection not incorporated by the Supreme Court is the requirement of having a jury trial in the same state and district that the crime was committed. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court held that a public defender must be provided to criminal defendants unable to afford an attorney in all trials where the defendant faces the possibility of imprisonment.

In Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity in all federal and state criminal jury trials. The Sixth Amendment requires juries to be impartial, which has been interpreted as requiring individual jurors to be unbiased. During voir dire, each side may question potential jurors to determine any bias, and challenge them if bias is found; the court then determines the validity of these challenges.

In the case of a violation of the rights conferred by the Sixth Amendment, citizens can bring a Section 1983 claim against state or local government officials. Section 1983 is a federal law that allows citizens to sue for violations of rights conferred by the US Constitution or federal laws. A plaintiff who prevails in a Section 1983 claim may be awarded monetary damages, and a court may also issue an injunction.

State laws and the Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution bars excessive bail and fines and protects citizens from cruel and unusual punishment. The Amendment has been interpreted to mean that bail may be denied if the charges are serious enough, and the Supreme Court has also permitted "preventive" detention without bail.

The Excessive Fines Clause prohibits fines that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law". The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and the Excessive Fines Clause apply to the states, according to the Supreme Court, which has ruled that they act as a shield against abuses stemming from the government's punitive or criminal law-enforcement authority.

In United States v. Bajakajian (1998), the Supreme Court struck down a fine as excessive for the first time. The Court has also held that the federal government cannot set bail at a figure higher than is reasonably calculated to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial.

In the case of Schilb v. Kuebel (1971), the Court stated that the Eighth Amendment's proscription of excessive bail has been assumed to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This was reiterated in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), where the right against excessive bail was included in a footnote listing incorporated rights.

Citizens can bring civil rights claims against state and local government officials under Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. Section 1983) if they violate rights conferred by the US Constitution or federal laws. In cases where federal law has not provided a separate way to address a violation of a right, citizens can bring civil rights claims against federal officials in narrow situations under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents.

Suing the state for violating the Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights outlines several rights and freedoms that US citizens are entitled to. These include the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to an impartial jury, the right to not be tried twice for the same offence, the right to not have property taken away without just compensation, the right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, and more.

If a state law violates any of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, it is possible for citizens to sue the state. This can be done through a Section 1983 claim, a federal law that allows citizens to sue for violations of rights conferred by the US Constitution or federal laws. Section 1983 applies to misconduct by state or local government officials and provides citizens with the right to access state or federal courts.

To successfully sue the state for violating the Bill of Rights, one must first establish that the state law in question violates a specific right outlined in the Bill of Rights. This can be a complex process, and it may be necessary to work with an experienced civil rights lawyer to build a strong case. Additionally, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the violation caused them harm and that this harm cannot be fully remedied by monetary damages.

It is worth noting that government officials are generally protected by qualified immunity, which allows them to avoid liability if their actions did not violate a clearly established right. To overcome this hurdle, plaintiffs must prove that the right violated was known to a reasonably competent government official at the time of the violation.

In addition to Section 1983 claims, citizens can also bring civil rights claims against federal officials in certain situations through Bivens claims. These are less common and are based on constitutional violations rather than violations of federal statutes.

Frequently asked questions