5th Amendment - U.S. Constitution Page
When the Senate Intelligence Committee passed the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act by a vote of 14 to 1, committee chairman Senator Richard Burr argued that it successfully balanced security and privacy.
What should happen if someone threatens to kill you on social media? Are they protected by the First Amendment right guaranteeing the right to freedom of speech, or are they breaking the law? We will soon know now the answer after the Supreme Court rules on a case that may have far reaching ramifications well beyond the single case they are hearing.
Republican Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed the "Safe Carry Protection Act" into state law on 4/23/2014. This law is being dubbed the "guns everywhere" bill by its critics. Here are the in's and out's of this incredibly controversial law, that goes into effect on July 1st.
On Tuesday Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on what has become to be known as "The Hobby Lobby" case. I may be accused of being too hyperbolic, but I believe this case has the potential to redefine the concept of religious freedom for years to come.
The Saint Patrick's Day parade is a big deal in New York City. The parade has been running annually each and every year, dating all the way back to the early days of 1762. Every year on March 17th, the city holds the parade that has come to expect an audience of roughly a million spectators and a few hundred thousand participants. Also of note, the parade is privately run.
5th Amendment Text
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.
On an April night in 1997, when Shonelle Jackson was eighteen, he went out to a local club in Montgomery, Alabama. As he and several friends watched a d.j. perform, a young man called Cocomo—a gang member from across town—walked up behind him and slapped him in the head, then ran off. The next day, Jackson, who had no car, approached a known thief named Antonio Barnes and asked him to steal him a ride. Jackson wanted to find Cocomo and “holler at him.” Barnes hot-wired a Buick LeSabre, and, with Jackson driving, they picked up Barnes’s friends Poochie Williams and Scooter Rudolph. All had been drinking or smoking weed, and they were armed: Jackson had a .380-calibre handgun, Barnes had a .357, Rudolph had a 9-millimetre, and Williams had a shotgun.
"You have the right to remain silent." Any devotee of TV crime dramas or police procedural shows hears the phrase regularly. But new court decisions in recent years have chipped away at that principle. Take the case of California resident Richard Tom. In 2007, he broadsided a car, injuring a girl and killing her sister. At the accident scene, he asked to go home but was told no. He wasn't handcuffed, but police held him in the back of a police car. At no point did he ask the police about the victims. During his trial for vehicular manslaughter, prosecutor Shin-Mee Chang told the jury that Tom's failure to ask about them pointed to the "consciousness of his own guilt."
While there’s a great deal of discussion around the pros and cons of fingerprint authentication, no one’s focusing on the *legal* effects of moving from PINs to fingerprints. Because the constitutional protection of the Fifth Amendment may not apply when it comes to fingerprints (things that reflect who we are) as opposed to passwords and PINs (things we need to know).
Its little-covered ruling in Salinas v. Texas could have major implications for future criminal prosecutions.
On Monday, in a case called Salinas v. Texas that hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves, the Supreme Court held that you remain silent at your peril. The court said that this is true even before you’re arrested, when the police are just informally asking questions.
Videos on 5th Amendment