There are several amendments of the Constitution that are supposed to regulate certain actions of police and the court system. When considering this question, it may be wise to consider how the police routinely break these regulations on a daily basis and often face little to no repercussions for routine...
There are several amendments of the Constitution that are supposed to regulate certain actions of police and the court system. When considering this question, it may be wise to consider how the police routinely break these regulations on a daily basis and often face little to no repercussions for routine human rights violations and violations of these amendments.
The Fourth Amendment limits how police can lawfully conduct searches and seizures. For instance, a cop is technically not allowed to simply stop someone on the street and conduct a random search of their person and belongings. However, for years, "stop and frisk" laws have been implemented across the country, resulting in the unconstitutional searches of hundreds of thousands of (mostly black and Lantinx) people. These searches have also resulted in case after case of rampant police brutality. When a federal judge deemed the searches unconstitutional in 2013, the numbers of these searches have sharply decreased from over 600,000 in 2011, but there are still tens of thousands of occurrences every year.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that people have the right to not incriminate themselves. While this amendment exists, police are still allowed to use incredibly coercive and manipulative tactics to try to make someone speak to them. For instance, the police are allowed to lie, falsify statements of other people, pretend to use lie detector tests, make allusions to nonexistent deals, and more. In the 2014 Supreme Court ruling Riley v. California, the court ruled that police could not force a defendant or suspect to unlock their phone without a warrant, as this would be a violation of a persons's right against self-incrimination.
The Eighth Amendment is supposed to protect people against cruel and unusual punishment. However, this amendment is incredibly subjective and is interpreted by a hierarchical state. One can easily make the argument that the very existence of prisons, probation, and ankle monitors is cruel and unusual. The fact that people languish every day in cages across this country in solitary confinement, stripped of their freedom, and held hostage if they cannot afford bail could easily be considered "cruel."