K (J) Unit 4 Your Rights Due Process 4, 5th, Miranda due process, warrants cases mapp v ohio, New York v. Quarles 1983, Duckwork v Egan, Horton v california , Terry v Ohio, Miranda, Alvarodo,

Search and Seizures A seizure must be reasonable (based on probable cause.....officer must know why they need to search place and prove

must be based on probable cuase must include a warrant provided to person of property warrant.

The officer pressed alvardo for information alvarado admitted to being there and helping hide the gun

The confession

Mapp v Ohio 1961 Mapp was convicted of a crime

Mapp was convicted of a crime based on search and siesures. Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated

4th Amendments 5th

Right of the adcused helps

just compensation rights

the right to be paid for property taken by the government

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

All people accused of a crime are subject to the same treatment and rules

Miranda v Arizona 1966 The facts

Ernesto Miranda confessed to multiple crimes police did not remind miranda of his rights to avoid self incrimination

Duckworth v Eagan 1988

Law enforcement can create its own miranda warning if it communicates the same message. doesnt need to be exact wording message. need to inform of all 5th amendment rights.

The Court of Appeals held that in light of these authorities, Alvarado's age and experience must be a factor. . . . A minor with no criminal record would be more likely to feel coerced by police tactics and conclude he is under arrest than would an experienced adult, the Court of Appeals reasoned. This required extra "safeguards." According to Justice Kennedy, why did the Court of Appeals overturn Alvarado's conviction? Check all that apply. The police used extra protections for him. The police coerced his confession. Minors require special legal protections. He was in custody because he concluded that he was under arrest. He was experienced enough to understand his rights.

Minors require special legal protections. He was in custody because he concluded that he was under arrest.

The entire thrust of police interrogation . . . was to put the defendant in such an emotional state as to impair his capacity for rational judgment. . . [T]he choice on his part to speak to the police -- was not made knowingly What does this quotation say about how Miranda's confession was made? Miranda incriminated himself without knowing that he could refuse. Miranda was completely aware of his rights when he made his confession. Miranda was unaware of his rights, but his confession could be used. Miranda incriminated himself intentionally and knowingly.

Miranda incriminated himself without knowing that he could refuse.

5th Double jeopardy

No citizen can be tried twice for the same crime

5th Just compensation

No citizens property can be taken by the governemtn without payment compensaton can't just put a highway in make you move

o you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's majority ruling in Yarborough v.Alvarado? Write a short paragraph describing your answer and connect the case to the Miranda v. Arizona decision

Sample response: I think that Michael Alvarado's conviction should have been overturned, not upheld by the Supreme Court. Even though he was not told he was under arrest or in custody, his belief that he was in custody was reasonable. This was especially true given his age. Therefore, he was entitled to his Miranda rights and should have been read his Miranda warning.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, spported by Oath or affirmation, and partiacularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Constitution of the United Staes, Amendment IV

Search and Seizures A seizure must be reasonable (based on probable cause.....officer must know why they need to search place and prove cuase a warrant )

The Miranda warning

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense all states have to say this doesnt have to be perfect exact its okay as long as things are included

lIMITS TO SEARCH AND SEIZURES 1 Terry v Ohio 1967 2 Horton v. California

1 law enforcement can carryout a stop and fristk...he was carry a deadly weapon and he could hurt someone. he argued his rights were violated and they werent had right to take away and search 2. Law enforcement does not need a warrant to gather evidence that is in plain view He was pulled over the evidence was in plain view and police took it it was laying in plain view the police officer could do that he didn't need warrant to take evidence you could see it

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

A citizen cannot be forced to confess to a crime The fifth amendment protects citizens against self-incrimination dont have to speak out against self you can'5t be forced to speak out a crime or witness against self.

dissent decision by two supreme court justices Two justices dissented, stating that a person is "in custody" when he or she feels restricted. They argued that the Court of Appeals was correct when it said that Alvarado felt restricted. Based on this fact, he should have been given a Miranda warning to make him aware of his rights. Which answer best describes the minority opinion? Alvarado did not need to have his rights read. Officers made sure that Alvarado knew his rights. Alvarado was actually in custody, because he felt restricted. Officers did not pressure Alvarado into confessing.

Alvarado was actually in custody, because he felt restricted.

The supreme court ruled that miranda was denied his rights

Decision He had not been instructed that he had the right to avoid self-incrimination

Mapp V Ohio led to the Exculsuionary RuLE

Decision IMpact of case: The decision created a rule called exclusionary rule. protects accused. -illegal search without warrant-evidence (can't use) Legal search evidence with a warrent find this evidence to convict someone that can be used can bring conviction. Court

5th amendment

Due process- process by which we accuse them what we do once we accuse arrest send to trial all people accused of a crime are subject to the same treatment and rules (we have a systme everyone plays by same rules in same system)

Miranda v Arizona 1966 The facts Miranda was convicted and sentenced to prison

He appealed his case by arguing that his fifth amendment rights were violated

Alvarado was charged and put on trial for murder. His attorney believed that Alvarado's confession should be thrown out because he had not been read his Miranda Rights. The trial court judge refused to grant this request; he ruled that Alvarado was not in custody at the time of the interview. Thanks to the evidence in his confession, Alvarado was convicted of second-degree murder. Why did the court allow Alvarado's confession to be used as evidence? He was not in custody at the time of the confession. His parents were not been present when he confessed. He had not asked to be read his Miranda rights. He felt pressured into confessing his crime.

He was not in custody at the time of the confession.

Which of these actions might have violated Alvarado's Fifth Amendment rights? He was interviewed by a police investigator. He was interviewed alone. He was not read his rights before being questioned. He confessed to being present during the crime.

He was not read his rights before being questioned

5th 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.

New York v. Quarles 1983

Officers do not need to read Miranda rights if public safety is immediately at risk where is gun you are a threat to public He argued his rights were violated there was a clear and present anger it was okay.

Mapp v Ohio 1961 Officers illegally searched home

Officers illegally searched Dollree Mapps home -officers entered based on eyewitness tips -they discovered illegal materials in the home

How has Supreme Court precedent changed your Fifth Amendment rights over time? Check all that apply. Officers can pressure a person to confess to a crime. Officers must communicate a person's rights to before questioning the person in custody. Officers can question someone immediately if public safety is at risk. Officers can communicate a person's rights in their own words if they communicate the same meaning. Officers may create different sets of rules to apply to groups of citizens however they please.

Officers must communicate a person's rights to before questioning the person in custody. Officers can question someone immediately if public safety is at risk. Officers can communicate a person's rights in their own words if they communicate the same meaning.

Result of case we now have Miranda Rights

People suspected of a crime cannot be pressured into confessing. Officers must inform citizens of their fifth amendment rights prior to questioning them while in custody

Which of these statements is true of the Fourth Amendment? Check all that apply. A police officer can search someone's home, so long as a judge is present. The Fourth Amendment describes a fair process for searches and seizures. A police officer may seize anything he or she finds suspicious. A judge will not issue a warrant if he or she does not believe there is probable cause. The Fourth Amendment prohibits only "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment describes a fair process for searches and seizures. A judge will not issue a warrant if he or she does not believe there is probable cause. The Fourth Amendment prohibits only "unreasonable" searches and seizures

Mapp v Ohio The Decision

The Supreme Court ruled in Mapps favor. Officers executed (stated participated) a search illegally -she could not be convicted based on evidence they gathered. (had to throw out couldn't be used to sentenced her

Supremes court decision overturned court of appeals decision..... The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals' decision and restored Alvarado's conviction. The Court said that being "in custody" was a matter of law, not of whether Alvarado believed he was in custody. Even though Alvarado was a minor, he was not in custody by law, so he did not have to be reminded of his Miranda rights. Which answer best describes the Court's decision? The confession cannot be used, because Alvarado believed that he could not leave. The confession can be used, because Alvarado was not in custody. The confession can be used, because Alvarado thought that he could leave. The confession cannot be used, because Alvarado did not know his rights

The confession can be used, because Alvarado was not in custody.

The Decision of the court of appeals

The court of appeals held that in light of these authorities alvardos age and experience must be a factor...a m inor with no criminal record would be more likely to feel coerced by police tactics and conclude he is under arrest than would an experience adult, the court of appeals reasoned. This required extra "safeguards...commensurate with the age and circumstances of a juvenile defendant. justice anthony kennedy, yarborough v alvardo, 2004

Alvarado came to the police staton with his parents he was interviewed alone He was not read his miranda rights

The interrogation

due process rights

The right to the same treatment and rules that all citizens recieve

Use the drop-down menus to choose the right phrases to complete the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon." The exclusionary rule states that evidence cannot be admitted if it was gathered during

Use the drop-down menus to choose the right phrases to complete the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE." The exclusionary rule states that evidence cannot be admitted if it was gathered during ILLEGAL SEARCH

The crime 17year old alvardo helped a friend steal a truck the friend shot and killed the trucks owner.

Yarborough v Alvarado The crime

Court of appeals decisions

he should have been read rights because his age and he never commited crime might make him feel like he had to by police thought it was unfair and he should ahve been read rights even though he was a juvenile

o you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's majority ruling in Yarborough v.Alvarado? Write a short paragraph describing your answer and connect the case to the Miranda v. Arizona decision

mine I think that Alvarado should have been read his Miranda Rights I feel that his age was a factor even though he wasn't in really in custody, he actually felt like he was. I can't imagine what was going through this young kids mind at the time all alone without parents being questioned by police. I am feel like this this teen was scared by law enforcement and couldn't property protect him self from self incrimination by the 5th amendment. For this reason juveniles must be treated and prosecuted differently from an older adult. This conviction should have been

5th Grand jury

no citizen can be tried for a capital serious crime without first being indicted.

self incrimination rights

the right to avoid confessing to a crime

Grand jury rights

the right to indictment before trial for capital crime