The fourth and fifth amendment

                The fourth amendment prevents law enforcement officers and agencies from conducting unreasonable searches of people and unreasonable seizures of property. A warrant must therefore be provided on the basis of probable cause. In relation to the fourth amendment, evidence can be ruled inadmissible in a court of law if said evidence has been gained from an unreasonable search. Under the Roberts Court, two cases are worth highlighting in the context of the fourth amendment. In the case of Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, the judicial branch of government ruled that the school in question was at fault for conducting a strip-search for an over-the-counter pill not considered dangerous to pupils. In the case of Arizona v. Grant, the Supreme Court ruled that the police could not search an automobile once an arrestee had been secured unless they had “reason to believe” that such a search would yield criminal evidence.

The fifth amendment leads on naturally from the fourth, seeking to protect the individual from the abuse of power by law enforcers. The key aspect of the fifth amendment is the due process clause (which also overlaps with the fourteenth amendment). Under the terms of due process, no-one can be imprisoned or stripped of their rights and possessions except by the lawful judgment of their equals and in accordance with the law of the land. Other aspects of the fifth amendment concern the right to silence and double jeopardy.

                The war against terror launched by the Bush administration and maintained under the Obama administration bears relevance to the fourth and the fifth amendment. To take an obvious example, detaining terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay has circumvented both the fourth and fifth amendments. During the 2008 campaign, Obama pledged to close the controversial detention center. However, his administration has failed to close Guantanamo Bay due to disagreement between Republicans and Democrats over where to house terrorist suspects. Congressional Republicans (particularly those in the House of Representatives) share some of the blame, but the Obama administration could have done more to offer a realistic alternative to a problem that is sadly symptomatic of the ‘bitterness-as-usual’ atmosphere of Washington DC. It is perhaps worth adding here that the United Nations Human Rights Office has described the force feeding of prisoners on hunger strike at Gitmo as a violation of international law. As an interesting aside, it is perhaps worth noting that Obama’s grandfather was himself placed in custody without charge or trial for months on end in Kenya.

                Another recent development to consider in relation to the fifth amendment is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Passed by Congress on the 220^th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the NDAA enables the military to effectively decide without due process who goes on trial and who can be detained. For such reasons, the NDAA has been called “an historical threat to American citizens” by the ACLU. Furthermore, the right to a fair trial is undermined by the use of racial profiling (officially called “domain awareness”) by law enforcement organizations. It must be remembered here that the US is a federal system and the states have a degree of autonomy from the national government to enact laws they feel are appropriate. There is concern amongst pressure groups that represent ethnic minorities over the use of racial-profiling by law enforcement bodies. This whole issue resurfaced during the trial and subsequent acquittal of George Zimmerman, the man who shot the unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in accordance with Florida’s stand-your-ground laws. As President Obama pointed out, his own son would look like Trayvon Martin.

                From the perspective of the federal government, three key provisions of the Patriot Act concerning roving wiretaps, searches of business records and surveillance of ‘lone wolves’ were extended in 2011. All three provisions undermine the fifth amendment, thereby adding credence to the view that certain constitutional rights are becoming less relevant in the war against terror. In the contemporary era, the fifth amendment has come under significant strain as America searches for security in an uncertain world.