Slander homework

Running head: T|HE FIFTH AMENDMENT

1

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT

1

Fifth Amendment

Name:

Institutional Affiliation:

The Fifth Amendment

Give Opinion On The Headlines and Discuss Whether 5th Amendment Was Violated

1. GRAND JURY REFUSE TO HAND DOWN INDICTMENT IN SLANDER CASE

I believe that slander cases are not criminal in nature but a civil case but is still within the auspice of grand jury. Although the grand jury has the mandate to project an accused person particular one accused of capital or infamous action, it can hand down indictment when they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence before them is sufficient. My opinion is that in this case, the grand jury refused to hand down the slander case because it is a civil case. The act of the grand jury did not violate the fifth amendment by not handing down the indictment in slander case because it is within their mandate to refuse should they feel that the evidence provided are not enough (Blitz, 2017). In fact, by refusing to hand down the case, the jury protected the accused and hence upholding the fifth amendment.

2. POLICE HAD NO WARRANT TO SEIZE DRUGS

In this case, the headline is about the third part of the fifth amendment which states that “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."(Blitz, 2017). The third part protect the accused from coercion, torture and harassment by police during arrest or during seizure of evidence. Without a proper warrant, a police officer cannot seize any property, or paper from the accused. In fact, without the warrant, the police officer violates the fifth amendment which requires that evidence be obtained legal and non violently. The fifth amendment protects people accused of offenses, but not illegal items such as drugs. My opinion is that police officers cannot seize illegal drugs without a warrant. In fact, when a police finds hard drugs, it is clear evidence that a crime has been committed. However, police should not conduct arrest to any person based on seized drugs but wait for the grand jury to either hand down the case or decline indictment. Fifth amendment is concerned with human rights, which includes protection from harassment and coercion (Blitz, 2017). In this case, there was human right violation of seizing drugs without search warrant and hence the fifth amendment was violated.

3. WITNESS REFUSES TO TALK TO THE GRAND JURY “PLEADS FITH

In my opinion, the witness was within his or her human rights to plead fifth as provided for by the third part of the fifth amendment that states “ on person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." As such, when a witness refuses to talk to the grand jury, the witness is not pleading guilty but properly uses the bill of rights under the law (Coulon, 2018). Unless in cases where the witness is not the accused, an accused person can not witness against themselves. Refusing to testify by the accused is not a violation of the fifth amendment. Therefore, in this case, witness did not violate the fifth amendment but rather upheld it.

4. TRAFFIC TICKESS ISSUED AFTER CAMERAS RECORD VIOLATIONS

My opinion is that the ticket was rightfully given after the cameras recorded a photo. When a police officer gives a ticket of traffic violation after the cameras have captured the incident, it is in accordance with the law. However, when the ticket is given before the cameras record the violation, the ticket can be disputed. For instance, when a driver with good driving record enters an intersection before the traffic lights turns red, the driver can dispute ticket (Coulon, 2018). Given that the cameras are automated, they would captured the right picture of the driver at the time the lights turned red. As such, it is difficult to dispute the violation ticket when issued. In short, no fifth amendment was violated by issuing the tickets after the cameras captured the violation.

5. BUSINESS CLOSES AFTER PATRONS COMPLAIN OF OWNER’S POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

In my opinion, a business that closes after patrons complain of owner’s political and religious beliefs violates the law of public accommodation. Under the law of public accommodation, employment discrimination and discrimination for racial, political, religious, color, nationality of origin, sex or gender, creed and disability be it mental or physical is prohibited (Kennett, 2017). It follows therefore, that when a business closes because of political and religious beliefs then, the state and civil rights laws are violated. In fact, the fifth amendment is violated by any person who refuses services of the other based on political affiliation, race, religion, color, country of origin, and disability (Blitz, 2017). The patrons are guilty of complaining about the owner’s political and religious beliefs and subsequent closure of the business. The refusal of service can only be allowed when customer’s presence is deemed to distract the well-being, safety and welfare of the people in the business environment and the business itself. In short it is a violation to arbitrarily refuse service to someone because of their political and religious beliefs.