Supreme Court Final Exam Review

Virginia v. Black

Is cross-burning a Constitutionally protected expression of ideology or a threat that the government can restrict? A Virginia state statute made it a criminal offense to burn crosses with the purpose of intimidating another person Also said that burning a cross is prima facie ("at first sight") evidence of an intent to intimidate Barry Black organized a Ku Klux Klan meeting that ended with a cross-burning Black was charged and convicted of violating Virginia's cross-burning statute 7-2 decision for Virginia Court opinion: the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form Declared the VA statute unconstitutional bc prima facie was too broad Cross-burning was not a "true threat"; have to prove the intent of the action was to intimidate a group of people

Judicial activism

allows for more interpretation; "what's the right result;" see the Constitution as a living, breathing document; broader societal implications; more leeway to interpret

3 types of encounters with police

1. Mere encounter 2. Investigative detention/stop 3. Arrest

Griswold v. Connecticut

1965 In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or other instrument in furthering contraception. A gynecologist at the Yale School of Medicine, C. Lee Buxton, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven in conjunction with Estelle Griswold, who was the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. Planned Parenthood of CT's Director, Griswold, and one of its doctors, Dr. Buxton, were arrested and charged under a CT law that forbade the use of contraceptives by anyone, including married couples, and penalized those who provided information about contraceptives Griswold and Buxton were found guilty as accessories and were fined $100 Griswold and Buxton fought the convictions, claiming that the CT laws violated their right to due process under the 14th Amendment Appellate Division: Griswold loses Connecticut Supreme Court: Griswold loses Griswold and Buxton then appealed to the US Supreme Court Supreme Court ruling: 7-2 Decision for Griswold Found the CT law unconstitutional and reversed the convictions A right to privacy can be inferred from several amendments in the Bill of Rights, and this right prevents states from making the use of contraception by married couples illegal. In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Douglas, the Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. While the Court explained that the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicted with the exercise of this right and was therefore held null and void. Justice Douglas' opinion: "We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation." "The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." "The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." "Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.'" "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights-older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions." LANDMARK CASE: The Supreme Court recognized a constitutionally protected right to privacy ***ESTABLISHED THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY (STRICT SCRUTINY - NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE A COMPELLING GOVT INTEREST) PRIVACY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT (1ST, 3RD, 4TH, 5TH, AND 9TH AMENDMENTS SAY SO) 9TH BEING FOR ALL UNLISTED RIGHTS (PROTECTS RIGHTS THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION, SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY) Banning birth control did not serve a compelling state interest (NEED TO MENTION CONNECTION TO STRICT SCRUTINY) Importance - context of the 1960s as a time for great social change

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

2016 In 2013, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), which contained several provisions related to abortions. One such provision required that any physician performing an abortion have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion was performed, and another provision required that all abortion clinics comply with standards for ambulatory surgical centers. The petitioners argued that H.B. 2 denied equal protection, unlawfully delegated lawmaking authority, and constituted arbitrary and unreasonable state action. 5-3 Decision for Whole Woman's Health HB2 imposes an undue burden on women seeking a legal abortion, and thus is unconstitutional. Majority opinion by Stephen G. Breyer In applying the substantial burden test, courts must weigh the extent to which the laws in question actually serve the stated government interest against the burden they impose. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for the 5-3 majority, which held that the provisions of H.B. 2 at issue do not confer medical benefits that are sufficient to justify the burdens they impose on women seeking to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion. In this case, the evidence presented before the district court showed that the admitting privileges requirement of H.B. 2 did not advance the state's interest in protecting women's health but did place a substantial burden in the path of a woman seeking an abortion by forcing about half of the state's abortion clinics to close. Many women, huge state - would increase the distance and decrease the number of providers/clinics available Trimester framework has been abandoned, more about viability/undue burden now

Lemon Test

3-pronged test; the law is only ok if... 1. it's secular 2. it has a neutral effect on religion 3. it does not cause 'excessive entanglement' between government and religion SNE

Exclusionary rule: 4th, 5th, 6th amendments

4th: probable cause, particularity 5th: self-incrimination, due process, double jeopardy clauses 6th: procedural due process rights (speedy trial, jury of peers, right to counsel, notice and opportunity to be heard)

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Watts v. US

Establishes a TRUE THREAT Watts was just using a hyperbole; it wasn't a true threat On August 27, 1966 while attending a protest and discussing police brutality, eighteen-year-old Robert Watts stated, "I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." Decision in favor of Watts (per curiam opinion): No. In a per curiam opinion, the Court concluded, without hearing arguments, that Watts' statement was "political hyperbole"

Exceptions to search warrant requirement

Exigent circumstances Consent to search Search incident to lawful arrest Automobile exception Hot pursuit Plain view/open fields exceptions Terry stops Border searches

Mapp v. Ohio

Established the exclusionary rule was applicable to the states (evidence seized illegally cannot be used in court) U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, 1961, ruled (6-3) that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," is inadmissible in state courts. (STATE - YES) 1961 Cleveland, Ohio, 1957: someone sets off a bomb at Don King's house Police received a tip that someone involved in the bombing was living/hiding in the house of Dollree Mapp Bomb materials might be at the Mapp household 3 police officers go to Mapp's house, knock on the door, and she answers They ask to enter, and she asks if they have a warrant After the police say no, she refuses to let them in 2 officers leave, 1 stays behind to stake out the place 3 hours later, even more officers return and knock on Mapp's door This time, Mapp doesn't answer, and the officers break down the door without permission Police officers show Mapp the warrant, and they wrestle over it (this paper was never seen again); warrant shoved down Mapp's bosom, she was handcuffed to another officer, and dragged upstairs while they raided her home The police officers handcuffed Mapp and continued to search her home They found Ogletree (the man), who was later cleared of being connected to the bombing While looking for Ogletree, the officers found evidence of illegal gambling, a pistol, and a small collection of sexually explicit materials that a previous resident had left behind Cleveland police arrested Mapp for the gambling items, but she was later cleared However, she did not cooperate with the officers very well, so a few months later the police turned around and charged her with having the sexually explicit materials Illegal to have "obscene materials" in the state of Ohio at the time Mapp was found guilty and sentenced for up to 7 years in prison Mapp appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals for the 8th district Mapp claimed that the law prohibiting obscene materials went against the 1st Amendment The 4th Amendment wasn't even Mapp's focus Police had no probable cause of thinking she had the obscene materials Claimed the explicit books could not be used in court because they were found without a warrant The appeals court agreed with the lower court, so Mapp appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio The Supreme Court of Ohio also agreed with the lower courts, so she appealed to the Supreme Court of the US The Supreme Court didn't care about her 1st Amendment argument in this case Instead, the justices were focused on the 4th Amendment (exclusionary rule - can't use evidence if the police got it illegally; established in Weeks v. US, but only at the federal level) 1961 Decision 6-3 in favor of Mapp, overturning her conviction because of the 4th Amendment Since the police didn't have a valid warrant, the court had to throw out any evidence the police obtained when they raided Mapp's home Court expanded the exclusionary rule to the state level!!! OPINION = "criminal goes free, if he must, but it's the law that sets him free"; 'the gov't can't break its own laws' Now, the exclusionary rule applies to ALL states

Miller Test

For obscenity and pornography - appeals to prurient (sexual excitement) interest - patently offensive sexual conduct - lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

Prior restraint

In First Amendment law, prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before the speech happens. It may be a statute or regulation that requires a speaker to acquire a permit or license before speaking. Prior restraint can also be a judicial injunction that prohibits certain speech. There is a third way in which the government outright prohibits a certain type of speech. Courts typically disfavor prior restraint and often find it to be unconstitutional.

Stare decisis

Let the decision stand; obligation to follow precedent; example = Roe v. Wade, women have come to rely on this precedent Roe v. Wade may have been wrongfully decided, but that's not a good enough reason to overturn it

Terry v. Ohio

Martin McFadden (a detective with 39 years of experience) gets suspicious when he sees 2 men pacing back and forth in front of a jewelry store McFadden concluded that the men were planning to rob the jewelry store McFadden approached the 3 men, who were congregating in front of a different clothing store McFadden was in street clothes but identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names After the men mumbled something, McFadden frisked them (patted them down to search for hidden weapons or other illegal items) After frisking them, McFadden found a pistol in Terry's pocket and a revolver in Chilton's pocket McFadden arrested all 3 men, but only Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons Their lawyer argued that the guns can't be used in court because McFadden's frisking went against the 4th Amendment (an illegal search and seizure; the exclusionary rule) Terry's argument: "that was a search and he didn't have probable cause!" The county court in Ohio disagreed, saying the exclusionary rule doesn't apply here Terry and Chilton were then found guilty Supreme Court decision: Was the stop-and-frisk of Terry and the other men a violation of the Fourth Amendment? The court said no! An 8-1 decision Stop-and-frisk was fine as long as there was a REASONABLE SUSPICION that someone is about to commit a crime Supreme Court replied: you're right - there was no probable cause, but you're wrong - this wasn't a "search" Terry stop = investigative stop = can pat down, can search for weapons = reasonably conclude that criminal activity is afoot and that the person may be armed and dangerous JUDICIAL ACTIVISM (there's nothing about reasonable suspicion in the Constitution)

Scrutiny, classes, and reasoning

ORDINARY SCRUTINY = RATIONALLY related to a LEGITIMATE gov't interest (NON-SUSPECT) HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY = SUBSTANTIALLY related to an IMPORTANT gov't interest (QUASI-SUSPECT) STRICT SCRUTINY = only if it is NECESSARY to achieve a COMPELLING gov't interest (SUSPECT) ORLN (or London) HSIQ (Harry Styles' IQ) SNCS (stop north carolina stop)

Border searches

Officials at the United States border, as well as airports and seaports that handle international travel, have broad discretion to conduct searches of individuals, their personal effects, and their vehicles.

Regulating right to abortion

Ordinary scrutiny, rationally related to a legitimate gov't interest (not strict scrutiny)

Miranda v. Arizona

Police arrest Ernesto Miranda, a suspect linked to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year old woman For 2 hours, police officers aggressively interrogated Miranda about the attack The police officers did not tell Miranda that he did not have to answer the questions, nor did they allow him to call a lawyer Wasn't explained to Miranda clearly or in a way he could understand (English as second language) Didn't inform him of his rights The officers broke Miranda down, and he confessed to the crime, even signing a statement that described the details of the attack When this confession was later used in court, Miranda was found guilty, even though his lawyer argued that the police pressured Miranda to confess Miranda was sentenced for up to 30 years in prison Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona, citing the 5th and 6th Amendments (the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney) The Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts Miranda appealed again to the US Supreme Court in June 1966 Supreme Court decision 5-4 decision Ruled that Miranda's confession could not be used as evidence because the officers had denied his 5th and 6th Amendment rights Chief Justice Earl Warren gave the opinion "The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent (poor/needy), a lawyer will be appointed to represent him." Empowered those accused of a crime ONLY APPLIES IF IN POLICE CUSTODY AND ONLY IF THEY PLAN TO QUESTION Can waive these rights voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently

Hot pursuit

Police may enter a private dwelling if they are in "hot pursuit" of a fleeing criminal. Once inside a dwelling, police may search the entire area without first obtaining a search warrant; when police are chasing someone they may enter a place without a warrant

Schenck v. US

Political speech with no imminent threat is protected, but in this case Schenck's words may imminently interfere with conscription He distributed a leaflet: "Resist the Draft" Said the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibited involuntary servitude or slavery The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Schenck Court decision: wartime circumstances changed the rules related to the right of free speech Also created the "clear and present danger" rule = a new test for free speech The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not shield advocacy urging conduct deemed unlawful under the Espionage Act

Automobile exception

Related to the "lawful arrest" exception, this allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant during the lawful arrest of the driver, but only if they reasonably believe that (1) the person under arrest might still be able to access the vehicle's passenger compartment, or (2) the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the offense for which they are arresting the person NEVER NEED A WARRANT Diminished expectation of privacy in a car, the mobility of the vehicle

Judicial review

Review by the US Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act

Scrutiny of state action of content vs. time, place, and manner restrictions/regulations

Scrutiny of content = STRICT SCRUTINY because it's the speech itself (necessary to achieve a compelling gov't interest) Scrutiny of time, place, and manner restrictions = ORDINARY SCRUTINY because it needs to demonstrate that it's rationally related to a legitimate gov't interest = public safety

Equal protection

The Equal Protection Clause is from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances

Terry stops (exception to search warrant)

The Supreme Court held in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), that police may "stop and frisk" a person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or will soon be involved in criminal activity. "Reasonable suspicion" is a lower standard than "probable cause." Evidence discovered in the course of what is now known as a Terry stop is admissible, even if police did not have a warrant. Any frisk must be limited to weapons and the outer clothing of the individual. If the officer finds a weapon or an object that feels like a weapon, they can retrieve it, and it can be used against the suspect in court, even if it is not actually a weapon. If the officer finds an object that is not a weapon but that is obviously illegal, they can seize the object, and the prosecution later can bring charges based on it. Not technically a search, it's just a "pat down"

Tinker v. Des Moines

Tinker test = had to materially + substantially interfere with school Verbal speech is not more important than symbolic speech Vietnam War protest - armbands 7-2 decision for Tinker The armbands symbolized pure speech that was completely separate from any actions of those wearing them Just because they were students on school property didn't mean they lost their First Amendment rights of the freedom of speech

Viability rationale in Roe v. Wade

Trimester/time matters; at a point in time, child is far enough along that it becomes a compelling state interest (strict scrutiny) 1st trimester = women wins 2nd trimester = it depends (if it impacts life or health of mother) 3rd trimester = gov't/child wins - COMPELLING STATE INTEREST Roe uses fundamental right established in Griswold

First amendment

establishment and exercise (religion), speech and protest; ability to question the gov't and not go to jail (like they did in England at the time)

Exclusionary rule

evidence is inadmissible if it was obtained through illegal search; meant to deter gov't misconduct; prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law

Symbolic speech examples

flag burning, offensive conduct (F*** the Draft), cross burning, armbands in protest, etc.

Passionate justice

if done the right way, violence can be just; certain people who rationally and morally deserve death

Rational justice

reasonable, measurable; Constitution = rational justice

Substantive due process

the government is supposed to act within its authority granted by the Constitution; the notion that due process not only protects certain legal procedures, but also protects certain rights unrelated to procedure

Justice

true balance of fairness; violence is never justice (desirable), but sometimes it's practically necessary

Judicial restraint

trying not to put in own beliefs; sticking to the letter of the law; not freely interpreting the Constitution; only look at the text; original intent of the framers

Rehabilitation theory of punishment

you have a problem and we need to fix it, then you won't commit any more crimes (mental health, drug and alcohol help, job training); moral issue = not every problem has a solution/a simple solution; it can result in very disproportionate sentences

Cohen v. California

"One man's vulgarity is another man's lyric" Opinion: dual communicative function = emotive + cognitive In 1968, Cohen went to the L.A. County Courthouse wearing a jacket that said "F*** the Draft" Cohen was arrested and convicted of disturbing the peace and sentenced to 30 days in prison 5-4 decision for Cohen

Reasonable suspicion

- Articulable facts (e.g. location); need to verbalize it, not just a hunch - REASONABLY believe that criminal activity is afoot - Less than probable cause - BRIEF interference with liberty - "Investigative detention" - CAN'T SEARCH but CAN pat down (Terry v. Ohio) - Reasonable suspicion can ripen into probable cause

Constitution's 3 main objectives

- Delegated/granted expressed power to federal gov't - Denied expressed power to federal gov't - Denied specific powers to the states

Unprotected speech under the First Amendment

1. Advocating an illegal act 2. True threat 3. Fighting words (provoking violence) 4. Obscenity and pornography FATO

Protected speech under the First Amendment

1. Political speech = most protected speech 2. Artistic speech = 2nd most protected (movies, music, etc.) 3. Critical speech (not necessarily politics but still other important issues; people have the right to criticize the gov't/public figures) 4. Commercial speech (advertising) CPAC

Hierarchy of law

1. US Constitution 2. Federal statutes/treaties 3. State constitutions 4. State statutes 5. Municipal ordinances

School District of Abington v. Schempp

1963 Under Pennsylvania law, public schools were required to read from the Bible at the opening of each school day. The Court consolidated this case with one involving Maryland atheists who challenged a city rule that provided for opening exercises in the public schools that consisted primarily of reading a chapter from the Bible and the Lord's Prayer. 8-1 Decision for Schempp Public schools cannot sponsor Bible readings and recitations of the Lord's Prayer under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

NYT v. Sullivan

1964 Actual malice standard = To prove defamation, (1) have to prove the info is false, BUT for public figures, you ALSO (2) have to prove it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false In 1960, a civil rights organization took out a full-page advertisement in the New York Times The advertisement personally offended L.B. Sullivan, the Montgomery Commissioner of Public Affairs; he felt that it harmed his reputation, as he was supposed to supervise the police department Sullivan sued the NYT on the grounds of libel Trial court: NYT loses Alabama Supreme Court: NYT loses NYT appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the First Amendment protects false statements about public officials BUT a public official can sue for false statements made with actual malice, which can be proven by: the other party KNEW the statement was false, or acted with "reckless disregard of the statement's truth or falsity" NYT v. Sullivan established the requirement of ACTUAL MALICE in defamation suits brought by public officials Only applies to public officials, NOT private individuals

Wisconsin v. Yoder

1972 3 Amish students from 3 different families stopped going to high school In Green County, Wisconsin, not going to school until the age of 16 was illegal According to the parents, it was Amish tradition not to enroll children in school after 8th grade Supreme Court unanimously sided with Yoder The 14th Amendment was applicable to the state in this case, and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment did protect the Amish parents' rights to take their kids out of school before the age of 16 BUT it was only ok to take kids out of school if it was for a well-established religion that is consistent historically for their reasons for taking the kids out of school No compelling state interest to force Amish people to finish up high school (received strict scrutiny bc it was the 1st amendment - religion)

Roe v. Wade

1973 A woman named Norma McCorvey was single, pregnant, and scared about her future She wanted an abortion, but in Texas, abortions were illegal except in the cases in which the mother's life was in danger McCorvey planned on having an abortion anyway at an illegal clinic, but police shut down that clinic Desperate, McCorvey contacted 2 lawyers who were looking for women who were seeking abortions in order to fight the Texas law that banned them In 1970, Coffee officially filed a complaint at the Dallas District Courthouse, giving Norma the pseudonym "Jane Roe" to protect her identity They were suing the state of Texas, arguing its abortion laws were unconstitutional Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas, was defending Texas The district court looked at Norma's case along with 2 other related cases 1970: the 3 judges of the court unanimously called the TX abortion law UNCONSTITUTIONAL, saying it broke the right to privacy assumed under the 9th Amendment (however, the judges did not act to stop the enforcement of the law) The defense appealed the ruling, and it went to the US Supreme Court Announced their decision on January 22, 1973 with a 7-2 vote in favor of Roe Argued that abortion fell under the 14th Amendment's due process clause Came down to a right to privacy Court ruled a woman had a right to an abortion until the fetus reached an age of "viability" VIABILITY = the baby would be able to survive independently outside of the mother's womb Pregnant woman's right to choose covered by the 14th amendment and penumbras (fundamental right to privacy as established in Griswold v. Conn) Rationale: privacy, like in Griswold, is a fundamental right; requires strict scrutiny

Texas v. Johnson

1989 In Dallas, TX in 1984, protestors marched through the streets, destroyed property, spray-painted walls, and broke windows, outside of the Republican National Convention Gregory Lee Johnson set the American flag on fire and chanted anti-American rhymes as the flag burned Johnson was arrested and charged with violating a TX law that said you can't vandalize respected objects Texas court found Johnson guilty and sentenced him to 1 year in prison; also fined him $2000 Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Johnson In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech.

Death penalty

A denial of human potential No uniformity as to how states use the death penalty No proportionate reduction in incidence/severity of crime in cases of execution... so it's not effective deterrence

Consent to search

A police officer does not need a warrant to conduct a search if a person with legal authority over the items or premises consents to a search. Any search to which an individual validly consents meets constitutional rules for searches and seizures, regardless of whether the police have a warrant. Courts consider consent valid if the police reasonably believed that the consenting person had the authority to consent, even if it turned out that he or she didn't. ***Needs to be valid consent, can't be threatened (coercive threat), consent given freely and willingly, can't be bribed, can't be punished nor rewarded

Plain view exception

A police officer doesn't need a warrant to seize contraband or evidence that is "in plain view" if the officer is legitimately in the area where the evidence or contraband is first spotted. (The officer must have probable cause to believe the item is evidence or contraband in order to seize it, though.) Object has to be obviously contraband

Exigent circumstances

Courts have allowed warrantless searches in situations where it would be impractical or dangerous to delay a search in order to obtain a warrant. This might include an imminent threat to an officer's safety, or a reasonable belief that a suspect will dispose of or destroy evidence while police are waiting for a warrant; still need probable cause

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Decided in 1857 Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott filed suit in Missouri court for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. After losing, Scott brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no "negro" or descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution. 7-2 decision for Sandford Majority opinion by Justice Roger B. Taney Held portions of the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth Amendment, treating Scott as property, not as a person. The majority held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves," whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court. Because the Court lacked jurisdiction, Taney dismissed the case on procedural grounds. Taney further held that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional and foreclosed Congress from freeing slaves within Federal territories. The opinion showed deference to the Missouri courts, which held that moving to a free state did not render Scott emancipated. Finally, Taney ruled that slaves were property under the Fifth Amendment, and that any law that would deprive a slave owner of that property was unconstitutional. Most embarrassing case in US history Dred Scott was property, not a person, so he didn't have the right to sue; not a citizen This is all Justice Taney is remembered for Judicial restraint (original intent of the Constitution = enslaved African race was not meant to be included)

Plessy v. Ferguson

Decided in 1896 Louisiana enacted the Separate Car Act, which required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Plessy - who was seven-eighths Caucasian - agreed to participate in a test to challenge the Act. He was solicited by the Comite des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), a group of New Orleans residents who sought to repeal the Act. They asked Plessy, who was technically black under Louisiana law, to sit in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. The railroad cooperated because it thought the Act imposed unnecessary costs via the purchase of additional railroad cars. When Plessy was told to vacate the whites-only car, he refused and was arrested. At trial, Plessy's lawyers argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The judge found that Louisiana could enforce this law insofar as it affected railroads within its boundaries. Plessy was convicted. 7-1 decision for Ferguson Majority opinion by Henry B. Brown Equal but separate accommodations for whites and blacks imposed by Louisiana do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment In an opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, the majority upheld state-imposed racial segregation. Justice Brown conceded that the 14th Amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law, but held that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African Americans. ('it's Blacks' fault if they interpret the law badly') In short, segregation did not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination. Famous dissent: In dissent, John Marshall Harlan argued that the Constitution was color-blind and that the United States had no class system. Accordingly, all citizens should have equal access to civil rights. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL

Brown v. Board of Education

Decided in 1954 This case was the consolidation of cases arising in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington D.C. relating to the segregation of public schools on the basis of race. In each of the cases, African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were denied relief in the lower courts based on Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that racially segregated public facilities were legal so long as the facilities for blacks and whites were equal. (This was known as the "separate but equal" doctrine.) Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Unanimous decision for Brown et al. Majority opinion by Earl Warren Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court. The Supreme Court held that "separate but equal" facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children. SEPARATE IS INHERENTLY UNEQUAL Opinion written so that the masses would understand it

Furman v. Georgia

Decided in 1972 Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (Two other death penalty cases were decided along with Furman: Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. These cases concern the constitutionality of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions, respectively). Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? Decision for Furman; per curiam opinion Yes. The Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. In over two hundred pages of concurrence and dissents, the justices articulated their views on this controversial subject. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner. *Method was 'arbitrary and capricious,' meaning the procedure was wrong, but the outcome wasn't

Gregg v. Georgia

Decided in 1976 A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Jurek v. Texas , Roberts v. Louisiana , Proffitt v. Florida , and Woodson v. North Carolina . Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment? 7-2 decision for Georgia Plurality opinion by Justice Stewart No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed. Georgia's death penalty statute assures the judicious and careful use of the death penalty by requiring a bifurcated proceeding where the trial and sentencing are conducted separately, specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime and the nature of the defendant, and a comparison of each capital sentence's circumstances with other similar cases. Moreover, the Court was not prepared to overrule the Georgia legislature's finding that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an appropriate means of social retribution against its most serious offenders. *Need the bifurcated process

Obergefell v. Hodges

Decided in 2015 Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages. The plaintiffs in each case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act. In all the cases, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and held that the states' bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the couples' Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process. 5-4 decision for Obergefell Majority opinion by Anthony Kennedy The Fourteenth Amendment requires both marriage licensing and recognition for same-sex couples. The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples. Because there are no differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union with respect to these principles, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. *About due process and equal protection clauses Cited Griswold v. Conn Personal choice regarding marriage is fundamental to personal autonomy Marriage as keystone of social order, safeguards children and families

Wolf v. Colorado

Declined to extend exclusionary rule to the state level Said there are many remedies that can be used other than the exclusionary rule, why limit the states? Dissenting opinion: this should apply to states too! states won't be able to deter illegal searches The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not prohibit the admission of evidence obtained during an apparently illegal search and seizure in State courts. (STATE - NO) In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not subject criminal justice in the states to specific limitations and that illegally obtained evidence did not have to be excluded from trials in all cases. More about states' rights

Weeks v. US

FIRST APPLICATION OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. (FEDERAL - YES) Weeks (low-level criminal), police violently searched his house, turned evidence over to the court, Weeks filed petition, saying it was a violation of his rights In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the seizure of items from Weeks' residence directly violated his constitutional rights. The Court also held that the government's refusal to return Weeks' possessions violated the Fourth Amendment. Court can't be involved in admitting illegally obtained evidence; judicial integrity; violation of rights now meant exclusion of evidence = remedy/deterrent to this problem ONLY APPLIED IN FEDERAL (NOT STATE) COURTS

Near v. Minnesota

In a Minneapolis newspaper called The Saturday Press, Jay Near and Howard Guilford accused local officials of being implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials sought a permanent injunction against The Saturday Press on the grounds that it violated the Public Nuisance Law because it was malicious, scandalous, and defamatory. The law provided that any person "engaged in the business" of regularly publishing or circulating an "obscene, lewd, and lascivious" or a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" newspaper or periodical was guilty of a nuisance, and could be enjoined from further committing or maintaining the nuisance. Went to the Supreme Court: 5-4 decision for Near Under the Free Press Clause of the First Amendment, and with limited exceptions, the government may not censor or prohibit a publication in advance. Gag law was a direct violation of the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment the Supreme Court fashioned the First Amendment doctrine opposing prior restraint and reaffirmed the emerging view that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the First Amendment to the states; the 1931 Supreme Court decision holding that the first amendment protects newspapers from prior restraint. Super-precedent: still can't restrain people before publication, even if it's false

Quasi-suspect classes

Intermediate scrutiny is applied to groups that fall under a "quasi-suspect classification." Gender and legitimacy of birth have been held to be quasi-suspect classes (maybe sexual orientation too); LEG gets intermediate scrutiny L = legitimacy E = education G = gender

Procedural due process

NOTICE + A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD tell them you're charging them of a crime, which one, and why; then person's right to trial, remain silent, cross-examine witnesses, right to counsel, right to present own witnesses, etc.

NYT v. US

Pentagon papers, no prior restraint - reinforced Near v. Minnesota; In October 1969, Ellsburg and his friend, Anthony Russo, began secretly photocopying pages from this Vietnam War study (illegal bombings/chemical warfare), which eventually became known as the "Pentagon Papers" Nixon was worried about the papers making the government look bad, but he framed it as arguing that the articles put national security at risk Nixon got a federal court to force the NYT to stop publishing about the Pentagon Papers Nixon's Attorney General, John Mitchell, argued that the NYT articles violated the Espionage Act of 1917 Meaning that prior restraint, or pre-publication censorship, was justified Voted 6-3 in favor of the NYT and Washington Post Prior restraint was not justified Did not put the nation's security at risk Newspaper writers had the freedom to publish their articles Caused the public to lose trust in their government Protect the governed, not the governors

Search incident to lawful arrest

Police officers may conduct a limited search of a person when they have placed the person under arrest. The search must be limited to the area of the person's immediate control and be for the purpose of checking for weapons and evidence. As long as the underlying arrest is valid, the police can search the person under arrest for weapons and evidence. They do not need to get a search warrant or consent from the suspect to search. The police also can search the vicinity of the person under arrest for further evidence. A protective sweep is a search incident to arrest that is meant to protect the safety of officers and other bystanders. An officer does not need to have a warrant to conduct this type of search, and any evidence in plain view can be admissible against the suspect. Immediate area of control and wingspan, checking the vicinity

Requirements for a valid search warrant

Requirements for a valid search warrant, establishing a probable cause, an officer's oath, details in a warrant application, neutral and detached magistrate *Probable cause, swear under oath/affirmation, particularity, neutral and detached magistrate Particularity: The requirement that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. * Issued by a judicial officer * Probable cause * Oath or affirmation * Specify Police officers obtain search warrants by convincing a neutral and detached magistrate that they have probable cause to believe that criminal activity is occurring at the place to be searched or that evidence of a crime may be found there. Usually, the police provide the judge or magistrate with information in the form of written statements under oath

Lemon v. Kurtzman

The Lemon Test is a 3 part test that the Supreme Court uses to determine whether a law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment A law must have a secular purpose A law's principle purpose can neither advance nor inhibit religion The government may not be excessively entangled in religion Can the government provide state funding to private religious schools? PA and RI passed statutes that allowed funding to go to religious schools In the majority opinion, Justice Warren Burger applied the 3 part test The statutes did have a secular purpose (education of students) The statutes weren't intended to advance nor inhibit religion BUT the third statute was violated: the government was excessively entangled; EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT As a result, the laws were deemed unconstitutional

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement. PA Abortion Control Act of 1982: imposed 5 restrictions on women and providers Women must give informed consent Women must receive state-published information about abortion before the procedure For minors, a parent must give informed consent Married women must notify their husbands Providers must keep records and report information 5-4 decision for Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania New "undue burden" standard to assess abortion restrictions The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Court decision: Roe still stands, maintaining that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment prevents states from unduly interfering with a woman's right to abort a nonviable fetus (bitter 5-4 decision) Reaffirmed Roe's essential holding: A woman has the right to abort a nonviable fetus without undue state interference States can restrict abortions after viability, with exceptions for pregnancies that endanger a woman's life or health States have a legitimate interest in protecting a pregnant woman's health and the life of the fetus Within the PA Abortion Control Act, the Supreme Court only claimed that the spousal notification was unconstitutional (the other 4 provisions were thus constitutional) Argued that abortion restrictions should be analyzed according to an UNDUE-BURDEN standard Undue-burden = an abortion restriction places an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion if the regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in her path Since this case, there has been an emphasis on whether a challenged restriction places an UNDUE-BURDEN on a woman's right to choose Only husband notification was unconstitutional Undue burden as a measuring test

Law

a dictate of REASON promulgated by those in authority for the common good; law has to be REASONABLE

Fundamental rights

a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process.

Motions to suppress

a request made by a criminal defendant in advance of a criminal trial asking the court to exclude certain evidence from the trial; based on the exclusionary rule

Suspect classes

any classification of groups meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination; race, religion, national origin, and alienage; RAN gets strict scrutiny R = race A = alienage N = national origin

Non-suspect classes

any statutory classification that is NOT a suspect or quasi-suspect classification; example = age; WAIT/DONE W = wealth A = age I = illegal aliens T = travel (international) D = disability O = orientation N = national origin (for government process) E = employment (public)

Arrest

any time an officer interferes substantially with your movement/liberty

Legal justice

balancing rights of the individual according to the law

Retribution theory of punishment

balancing the scales; not vengeance; meant to be proportional/fair; fixing/re-balancing the scales of justice

Suspect class

category or class, such as race, that triggers the highest standard of scrutiny from the Supreme Court

Utilitarian theory of punishment

deter others (general deterrence)/the offender (specific deterrence) from doing the crime; offender used to persuade others to behave = moral issue (treating them as a means to an end)

Prior restraint

government censorship of information before it is published or broadcast; government action that prohibits speech or other expression before the speech happens; requires strict scrutiny (SNCS)

Punishment

harm deliberately imposed by the state; has to be something unpleasant; depends on 1. offense characteristics (crime itself) 2. offender characteristics (person/criminal)

Quasi-suspect example

heightened scrutiny; important government interest; gender

Rational basis test

is it rationally related to a state objective?

Mitigating circumstances

less severe sentencing; provides reasons as to why punishment for a criminal act ought to be lessened; in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do not excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered out of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the offense the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction of the penalty upon conviction. The defendant's age. The defendant's mental capacity. The crime was an accident. Self defense. Provocation or "heat of passion" The defendant repented from his actions.

Guideline sentencing

non-binding rules that set out a uniform sentencing policy for defendants convicted in the United States federal court system that became effective in 1987; taking aggravating and mitigating circumstances and quantifying them on a chart (e.g. severity level); these are recommendations

Symbolic speech

nonverbal expression whose purpose is to communicate ideas

Particularity clause

particularly states the place to be searched and the things to be seized (4th amendment); the requirement that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another

Inventory search

police stop the vehicle, no probable cause that anything is in the car, take inventory of the car later, this is an inventory search and is permissible; permissible warrantless search of a vehicle that has been "impounded" - meaning that it is in police custody - so that police can make a record of the items contained in the vehicle INVESTIGATIVE SEARCH CAN'T BE USED AGAINST YOU BUT INVENTORY SEARCH CAN *INVENTORY SEARCH MUST BE A STANDARD DEPARTMENTAL POLICY - need to have written policy (otherwise, it counts as an investigative search, which is inadmissible)

Incapacitation theory of punishment

protection of the public; gate-keeping function; "he's a threat to the public/society"

Probable cause

reasonable grounds for arrest/warrant; FACTS and CIRCUMSTANCES that would lead a reasonable police officer to reasonably believe that a crime was committed and that the person in question did it NEED probable cause to search A SEARCH STILL REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE 100% OF THE TIME the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuing of a search warrant; must be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant

Aggravating circumstances

refers to factors that increase the severity or culpability of a criminal act; more severe sentencing; some generally recognized aggravating circumstances include heinousness of the crime, lack of remorse, and prior conviction of another crime

Mandatory sentencing

requires that offenders serve a predefined term for certain crimes, commonly serious and violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system (e.g. mandatory minimums during the War on Drugs; drugs, DUI, firearms, public conveyances)

Time, place, and manner restrictions/regulations

restrictions of free speech; these restrictions, to be constitutional, have to undergo ordinary scrutiny - rationally related to a legitimate gov't interest; have to relate to public safety Government regulations that place restrictions on free speech. These regulations, specifying when, where, and in what way speech is allowed, are applied when unrestricted free speech will conflict with the rights of others

Mere encounter

simple conversation, officer just needs to be curious; exchange of information between officer and civilian, no level of suspicion required, civilian free to leave at anytime, can't interfere with your liberty; reasonable suspicion may be raised if you don't answer; CAN'T SEARCH

When is a religion a 'religion'?

sincerely held beliefs and it occupies a place in your life like those of other people in organized religions

True threat

statement where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to an individual or group of individuals 1. intent/serious threat 2. reaction of recipient 3. direct communication to recipient/group 4. history of violence

Reasonable expectation of privacy

subjectively believe you're in private AND society recognizes it's private (park is not private, but your house is)

Open fields exception

the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not protect "open fields" and that, therefore, police searches in such areas as pastures, wooded areas, open water, and vacant lots need not comply with the requirements of warrants and probable cause. "Open fields," defined as open areas of a person's property that are not directly adjacent to his or her residence, are not protected by the Fourth Amendment and may be searched without a warrant. Not a reasonable expectation of privacy

Due process

the balance struck between liberty and organized society; a Due Process Clause is found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person