Skip to main content

Civil Rights in the United States

Miranda Warning, Right to Remain Silent, Confessions

The Fifth Amendment:
 
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 offence 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.
 
Miranda Warning
 
“The doctrine that a criminal suspect in police custody must be informed of certain constitutional rights before being interrogated. The suspect must be advised of the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have an attorney appointed if the suspect cannot afford one. If the suspect is not advised of these rights or does not validly waive them, any evidence obtained during the interrogation cannot be used against the suspect at trial (except for impeachment purposes).” Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). The Miranda warning requirement only applies to custodial interrogations. The Miranda warning is derived from the United States Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966).
 

Eminent Domain & Kelo v. New London

Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain is “The inherent power of a governmental entity to take privately owned property, esp. land, and convert it to public use, subject to reasonable compensation for the taking.” The Eminent Domain Clause is the “Fifth Amendment provision providing that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.” Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). The last clause of the Fifth Amendment states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”​

Kelo v. New London (2005)

Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) is a very controversial case involving the constitutionality of the condemnation of fifteen private properties by the city of New London, Connecticut, to implement a redevelopment plan. The goal of the plan was to transfer the condemned land to private developers, who promised to promote economic growth in the depressed area. But the government made no showing that the private properties were “blighted or otherwise in poor condition.” The United States Supreme Court held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause. According to the Court, because the city was following a redevelopment plan and was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, these justifications for taking the land should be given deference. The takings qualified as "public use" despite the fact that the land was not going to be used by the public. The Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose.'"


University of Minnesota Law Library
Reference Desk: 612-625-4309 • Circulation Desk: 612-625-4300 • Contact Us