"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on 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."

Within the legal process, this amendment plays an enormous role. From the first clause, the Fifth Amendment establishes the fact that citizens are innocent until proven guilty. What determines that potential guilt is the presentation of the case facts before a Grand Jury. When the accused person is in actual service in the military, then the process of presenting a case before a Grand Jury would be skipped. Furthermore, the next clause protects citizens from double jeopardy. The same person cannot be sentenced more than once for the same offense. Also, no one can be forced to testify on the witness stand against himself/herself in any criminal case, and he/she cannot be sentenced to death of any way, or have his/her property nor rights guaranteed by the Constitution be taken away and/or disregarded unless he/she is so sentenced after proper legal process has been successfully executed, deemed by the Constitution. But concerning private property alone, the government cannot take any private property from any citizen without their permission; however, if it is intended for public use, the government need only to give the owner a fair and just compensation for the property, and then they have the power to take the land for public use.

As far as I know, most of this amendment is still followed to the letter of the law; having worked at a law firm for a year, I noticed no deviation from this amendment in any case. Everything was very proper and systematic. However, I do raise a concern about the final part of the fifth amendment, the "just" compensation for taking private property for public use. Eminent Domain is what first comes to mind when thinking of this clause. I have not personally been affected by eminent domain, so I can't say for sure, however I do remember seeing on the news a few years ago day after day with stories about the low compensation that the government was giving to people for taking their private property with eminent domain. I haven't heard much about it lately, but I still see signs on the road from some guy affected by eminent domain who clearly hates Kansas City. Granted, eminent domain is used by the state government and not the national government, but that's what came to mind. A just compensation should be worth the value of the property based on what it would sell for.

Drawing blood helps obtain evidence

September 28, 2009
In response to Glen Fassinger’s letter regarding blood draws for DUI offenders and Fifth Amendment protections, I ask: What is the difference between these draws and getting blood from rape and/or murder suspects? (“Drawing blood in DUI cases is going too far,” Sept. 21)
Someone dies from an alcohol-related crash every 31 minutes in this country, making the death toll caused by DUI crashes far higher than any other crime. The blood of these drivers is evidence that should be obtainable with or without a warrant, in my opinion.
Last I checked, driving is a privilege, not a right. Part of that privilege (as indicated on your Tennessee license) is to submit to a chemical test upon demand of a law enforcement officer.
If a DUI offender kills someone you love, would you not expect police to gather as much evidence as possible for a successful conviction? According to NHTSA, around 12,000 people were killed in our country in 2008, thanks to DUI offenders.
If it takes officers to draw their blood on the side of the road to make a dent in this number, then so be it. It’s obvious the loss of their license (for violating implied consent) and/or higher fines are not keeping them off the road.
I certainly do not see forced blood draws as violating the Fourth or Fifth Amendment; I see it as obtaining evidence of a horrible crime and, more importantly, a possible deterrent for those thinking about drinking and driving.
Scott Harding
ANTIOCH 37013

I chose this article because some would say that giving blood in a case where you are the accused is testifying against oneself.




I chose this video because it shows an attorney "pleading the fifth" in court.