Your Rights: Due Process
match each case with the precedent it established Mapp v. Ohio, Horton v. California, Terry v. Ohio Officers can gather evidence that is in plain view, Officers can legally carry out a stop and frisk, Convictions cannot be based on evidence from an illegal search.
Mapp v. Ohio- convictions cannot be based on evidence from an illegal search Terry v. Ohio- officers can legally carry out a stop and frisk Horton v. California- officers can gather evidence that is in plain view
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 __________
Searches and seizures probable cause an illegal search
Match the type of right to the phrase that describes it best Self-incrimination rights, Grand-jury rights, Double-jeopardy rights, Just-compensation rights, Due-process rights The right to the same treatment and rules that all citizens receive, The right to avoid being tried twice for the same crime, The right to be paid for property taken by the government, The right to avoid confessing to a crime
SELF-INCRIMINATION RIGHTS -the right to avoid confessing to a crime. JUST-COMPENSATION RIGHTS -the right to be paid for property taken by the government. DOUBLE-JEOPARDY RIGHTS -the right to being tried twice for the same crime. GRAND-JURY RIGHTS -the right to indictment before trial for a capital crime. DUE-PROCESS RIGHTS -the right to the same treatment and rules that all citizens receive.
"Both sides appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which upheld all fifteen takings in a close 4-3 decision. The majority ruled that almost any public benefit counts as a "public use" under the state and federal constitutions, and that courts must generally defer to government planners." -"The story behind Kelo v. City of New London," Ilia Somin Which statement best summarizes the ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court? The property could not be considered for public use. The property could be seized only if the city could prove the community would benefit. The government had the right to seize the property for virtually any public use. The government did not have the right to condemn the property.
The government had the right to seize the property for virtually any public use.
"In a dissenting opinion, Justice Peter Zarella argued that "the constitutionality of condemnations undertaken for the purpose of private economic development depends not only on the professed goals of the development plan, but also on the prospect of their achievement." Presciently, he warned that "[the] record contains scant evidence to suggest that the predicted public benefit will be realized with any reasonable certainty" and that it was "impossible to determine whether future development of the area . . . will even benefit the public at all." -"The story behind Kelo v. City of New London," Ilia Somin Which statement best paraphrases Justice Zarella's dissenting opinion? The condemnation of any private property by the government was unconstitutional. The potential benefit of taking the property for the public outweighed the owners' rights. It could not be determined with certainty that developing the property would benefit the public. The property could not legally be earmarked for public use while it remained privately owned.
It could not be determined with certainty that developing the property would benefit the public.
"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.
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.
"The NLDC produced a development plan that would revitalize Fort Trumbull by building housing, office space, and other facilities that would support a new headquarters that Pfizer, Inc. - a major pharmaceutical firm - had agreed to build nearby. The development plan produced by the NLDC was in large part based on Pfizer's requirements, which NLDC leaders (some of whom had close ties to Pfizer) were eager to meet. Pfizer would not be the new owner of the redeveloped land, but did expect to benefit from it. I believe that NLDC leaders genuinely thought the plan would serve the public interest, as did the city and state officials who supported it. But it is also true, as one of those who worked on the plan put it, that Pfizer was the "10,000 pound gorilla" behind the project." -"The story behind Kelo v. City of New London," Ilia Somin How would the development plan affect industry? Check all that apply. Offices and other facilities would open across the community. A pharmaceutical company planned to set up new headquarters. Pfizer agreed to purchase a great deal of land to help with the development. The development was designed to support a wide array of businesses. Housing for workers would be constructed to support the new headquarters.
Offices and other facilities would open across the community. A pharmaceutical company planned to set up new headquarters. Housing for workers would be constructed to support the new headquarters.
"As for the City of New London, Justice Zarella and other skeptics turned out to be right. The NLDC's flawed development plan fell through, as did a number of later efforts. Richard Palmer, one of the state supreme court justices who voted with the majority, later apologized to Susette Kelo, telling her he "would have voted differently" had he known what would happen. Today, the condemned land still lies empty, though city officials now plan to build a memorial park honoring the victims of eminent domain, on the former site of Susette Kelo's house." -"The story behind Kelo v. City of New London," Ilia Somin What impact did the development plan have on the community? Check all that apply. One of the justices later regretted the decision. The land was eventually returned to the residents. The development was very slow and remains ongoing. The land was never developed, and it remains empty. City officials plan to honor the victims of the development deal.
One of the justices later regretted the decision. The land was never developed, and it remains empty. City officials plan to honor the victims of the development deal.
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.
"As IJ lawyer Scott Bullock put it, the Fort Trumbull situation was an "ideal public interest case" for the Institute. Legally, the case was a good one because the city did not claim that the property in question was "blighted" or otherwise causing harm, thereby making it harder to prove that condemnation would genuinely benefit the public. The case also featured sympathetic plaintiffs who were determined to fight for their rights. That made it likely that it would play well in the court of public opinion, and that it would not be settled before it could lead to a precedent-setting decision. IJ hoped to achieve a ruling holding that takings that transfer property from one private individual to another for "economic development" do not serve a genuine "public use" and are therefore unconstitutional." -"The story behind Kelo v. City of New London," Ilia Somin Which ideas supported Bullock's argument on behalf of the residents? Check all that apply. Developing the land would not benefit New London. The property was not actually in poor condition. Condemning the property would not benefit the public. The city would be better served by a different development plan. The residents would be seen as sympathetic by the public.
The property was not actually in poor condition. Condemning the property would not benefit the public. The residents would be seen as sympathetic by the public.
"Seven individuals and families, who between them owned fifteen residential properties, refused to sell despite the pressure. One was Susette Kelo, who wanted to hold on to her "little pink house" near the waterfront. Some of the other families involved had deep roots in the community and did not want to be forced out. Wilhelmina Dery, who was in her eighties, had lived in the same house her whole life, and wished to continue living there during the time left to her. The Cristofaro family were also strongly attached to their property, which they had purchased in the 1970s after their previous home had been condemned as part of an urban renewal project." -"The story behind Kelo v. City of New London," Ilia Somin How would the development plan affect Susette Kelo and other residents? They were in danger of losing their property against their will. They were at risk of not being able to sell their land to the development company. There was a chance they might not make much money from selling their property. They were likely to face discomfort from construction taking place near their homes.
They were in danger of losing their property against their will.
"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 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." -The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution Which statement summarizes property rights according to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution? The private property of law-abiding citizens can never be taken for public use. The private property of citizens may be taken any time the federal government requires it. The private property of citizens may be seized by the government, but only during times of war. The private property of citizens shall not be taken without legal process and compensation.
Which statement summarizes property rights according to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution?
"In order to implement the plan, the NLDC sought to acquire land belonging to some ninety different Fort Trumbull property owners. In 2000, the New London city council authorized the NLDC to use eminent domain to condemn the land of those who refused to sell. Some defenders of the takings emphasize that all but seven of the owners sold "voluntarily." But as New London's counsel Wesley Horton noted in oral argument before the Supreme Court, many did so because there was "always in the background the possibility of being able to condemn . . . that obviously facilitates a lot of voluntary sales." Moreover, owners who were reluctant to sell were subjected to considerable harassment, such as late night phone calls, dumping of waste on their property, and locking out tenants during cold winter weather." -"The story behind Kelo v. City of New London," Ilia Somin The city of New London gave developers the power to purchase property. condemn property. own property privately. sell privately owned property.
condemn property.
According to the Fifth Amendment and the ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, when can the government take your property? Check all that apply. only if it pays you fairly for your property only if you agree to sell your property to it only if the public benefit outweighs your personal benefit only if you receive due process only if the community will receive some benefit
only if it pays you fairly for your property only if you receive due process only if the community will receive some benefit
"The case originated with a development project in the Fort Trumbull area of New London, a small city in Connecticut. The neighborhood had fallen on difficult economic times in the 1990s after the closure of a naval research facility. City officials and others hoped to revitalize it. The administration of Republican Governor John Rowland hoped to expand his political base by promoting development in New London; but to avoid having to work directly through the heavily Democratic city government, they helped resuscitate the long-moribund New London Development Corporation, a private nonprofit organization established to aid the city with development planning. -"The story behind Kelo v. City of New London," Ilia Somin What caused state officials to promote development in New London? the community's economic struggles a desire to expand on a strong economy the planned opening of a new military base interest in strengthening ties with city officials
the community's economic struggles
