Presentation on theme: "Bellringer On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal."— Presentation transcript:
1 BellringerOn May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.”Police found neither the bombing suspect nor the betting equipment during their search, but they did discover some pornographic material in a suitcase by Mapp's bed. Mapp said that she had loaned the suitcase to a boarder at one time and that the contents were not her property. She was arrested, prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced for possession of pornographic material. No search warrant was introduced as evidence at her trial.1. Did the police violate her rights? How?
5 First AmendmentCongress 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.
6 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)Facts: Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes provided state aid to church-related elementary and secondary schools. A group of individual taxpayers and religious liberty organizations filed suit, challenging the constitutionality of the program. They claimed that, since the program primarily aided parochial schools, it violated the Establishment Clause.
7 Establishment ClauseGovernment cannot take actions that create an official religion or support one religion over the other.Establishment Clause is often questioned in cases concerning education.Lemon vs. Kurtzman (public support for non religious courses)
8 Limitations on the Free Exercise Clause A Person has the right to hold any religious beliefs they choose.Government can punish illegal drug use even if the drug use is a part of a religious practice.Ex. Reynold vs. U.S. -polygamyGovernment can forbid it because it is against social norms.
9 Lemon Test 1. It must have a secular, or non religious, purpose. 2. Its major effects must neither, advance nor inhibit religion.3. It must not encourage excessive government entanglement with religion.
10 Non protected Speech Four categories: Libel-written defamation of another personObscenity(Miller vs. California)Fighting Words-Unconstitutionally protected because their very utterance may inflict or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace.Commercial Speech – advertisements and commercials for products and services
11 Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music Is this explicit?Big hairy woman, you need to shave that stuff, Big hairy woman, you know I bet it's tough. Big hairy woman, all that hair ain't legit, 'Cause you look like Cousin It. Big hairy woman
12 Banned Speech-Alien and Sedition ACTS TreasonSeditionMaking war against the United States and giving aid and comfort to its enemies.Speech or actions that inspire revolt against the government
13 Review Questions 1. What is the Establishment Clause? 2. What are two limitations placed on the Free Exercise Clause?3. Identify and explain three of the non protected forms of speech.4. Compare and Contrast sedition versus treason.
14 BellringerMy right to swing my fist ends where it meets your nose.” What does this mean?
15 Cult -a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
19 Communications of ideas through symbols and speech. Prior RestraintSymbolic SpeechGovernment action that seeks to prevent materials from being published.(Ex. President Nixon and the Pentagon Papers)Communications of ideas through symbols and speech.
21 Freedoms of Assembly and Petition Government can only intervene in cases where protestors encourage others to commit violent acts.Freedom of association the right to join with others, share ideas and work toward a common purpose.
24 Miller vs. CaliforniaFacts. In this case, the Appellant, Miller (Appellant), conducted a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of illustrated adult material books. The Appellant’s conviction was specifically based on his conduct in causing five unsolicited advertising brochures to be sent through the mail. The brochures consist primarily of pictures and drawings very explicitly depicting men and women in groups of two or more engaging in a variety of sexual activities, with genitals often predominantly displayed. This case thus involves the application of a state’s criminal obscenity statute to a situation in which sexually explicit materials have been thrust by aggressive sales action upon unwilling recipients.Basic guidelines for a trier of fact in an obscenity matter must be: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
25 Explicit Rights in the First Amendment Writ of Habeas CorpusEx Post Facto Law- Retroactive criminal law that works to the disadvantage of a person.For example, your local town has a littering problem. Littering is entirely legal in town. A law is written to ban littering, but lawmakers want to catch perpetrators who have already been littering so they make the law effective as of five years ago.
27 Lemon v. Kurtzman: The Background The trial of Lemon v. Kurtzman was a groundbreaking case that took place in Pennsylvania. The case began because the state of Pennsylvania passed a law that allowed the local government to use money to fund educational programs that taught religious-based lessons, activities and studies. This law was passed through the Non-public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968. The case of Lemon v. Kurtzman was filed by Alton Lemon, a Pennsylvania instructor who claimed that the state had violated the United States Constitution by passing the law mentioned above. Lemon believed that Pennsylvania violated the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution because the Constitution does not allow the establishment of any state laws or legislation that combine the interests of religious people with the interests of the state’s population. This is known as the Separation of Church and State. The government is not allowed to place the interest of any organization or institution above the interests of the general population. Using these Amendments, Lemon believed that the state of Pennsylvania unfairly funded religious programs that did not appeal to the state’s general population. Explain in detail how this case violated the Establishment Clause?
30 MisdemeanorFelonyIndecent Exposure Traffic Violations Theft Assault Jail sentence for 6mths to 1 year.MurderRapeArsonSale of Illegal drugsGrand theftKidnappingFelonies are broken down in classifications when it comes to punishment.
31 Degrees of Murder and Manslaughter 1st Degree Murder- Committed with deliberation and premeditation2nd Murder is committed during the commission of a felony (Felony Murder Rule)3rd Killing that results from indifference or negligence Voluntary Manslaughter-Intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate (crimes of passion)Involuntary Manslaughter- Death occurs a result of a misdemeanor.
32 Chapter 10 CIVIL LIBERTIES Section 1, 3 and 4Please define the terms from all four sections .
33 Bowers v HARDWICKBowers v. Hardwick (1986) In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not protect the right of gay adults to engage in private, consensual sodomy. The case began in August 1982, when Atlanta police arrived at the residence of Michael Hardwick to arrest him for failing to appear in court on charges of public drinking. A roommate let the police into Hardwick's home. As the police searched for Hardwick in the house, they noticed a door partly open. Peering in, they found Hardwick and a male companion engaged in oral sex. Hardwick and his partner were arrested on charges of violating the Georgia Sodomy Statute, which stated that "a person commits the offense of sodomy when he performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another" and "a person convicted of the offense of sodomy shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years." Hardwick sued the state of Georgia, claiming that the sodomy statute violated the Constitution. After Hardwick prevailed in a federal appellate court, Georgia appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1986.