The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “…no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”. In addition to the rights to life, liberty, and property, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to bodily integrity and the right to be free of unauthorized and unlawful physical abuse by the state.
These rights are guaranteed by two separate Fourteenth Amendment concepts, both dealing with due process: Substantive Due Process; and Procedural Due Process. In all cases where a person stands to be deprived of his life, liberty or property, he is entitled to the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 567 (1972); Women’s Med. Prof’l Corp. v. Baird, 438 F.3d 595, 611 (6th Cir. 2006). In order to establish a procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) he had a life, liberty, or property interest protected by the Due Process Clause; (2) he was deprived of this protected interest; and (3) the state did not afford him adequate procedural rights prior to depriving him of the property interest. On the other hand, a substantive due process claim requires that a person show that the law enforcement officer’s behavior was so horrific or egregious as to be “shocking to the conscience.” While a person with a substantive due process claim does not need to show a deprivation of life, liberty, or property, these claims are incredibly difficult to bring because of various protections and immunities that police officers are often entitled to.
The freedom from deprivation of life without due process is clear—this means that the government may not exercise deadly force, execute, or otherwise cause the death of a person without sufficient due process, such as conviction at a criminal trial and the opportunity to appeal. The police may not use deadly force unless absolutely necessary—for example, the police may not shoot a fleeing criminal suspect in the back if they have no reason to believe that he will cause harm to others.
The concept of a “liberty interest” was traditionally meant as freedom from physical restraint—in other words, freedom from being physically held or tied down. However, the Supreme Court has expanded what constitutes a “liberty interest” in a variety of circumstances. School children have a liberty interest in freedom from wrongfully or excessively administered corporal punishment. Individuals have a liberty interest in not being labelled by the government—for example, a law that labels people who have received DUIs as “excessive drinkers.” Inmates have a liberty interest in not being placed in solitary confinement or being transferred from minimum security prison to maximum security prison.
As to a “property interest,” this traditionally meant that government officers may not take an individual’s belongings, money, or home without due process. This right has been expanded to prevent the government from denying welfare assistance. Further, individuals may have a property interest in a contract for the sale of goods, or in keeping their jobs. In the context of police misconduct, the most common examples of deprivations of property are where police confiscate belongings from individuals, including their money or vehicle, or where the police unlawfully evict a person from their home.
In addition to protecting individuals from being deprived of their life, liberty, or property, the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits discrimination by police officers. The Amendment states that “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This section thereby prohibits police officers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their race, sex, national origin, and religion, among other things. Accordingly, police officers may not target individuals based on one of these characteristics, nor engage in racial profiling, nor otherwise treat an individual worse because of one of these characteristics.