1. 4/15/ :24 PM
Chapter 4 Civil Liberties - individual legal and constitutional protections against the gov’t. Bill of Rights First Amendment - Religion, Speech, Assembly, Petition BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE STATES Barron v. Baltimore SC decision that Bill of Rights restrained ONLY to the national gov’t. NOT states or cities. Gitlow v. NY SC ruled that state gov’t must respect some 1st Amendment rights and are protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. SC interpreted the 14th amendment to say states could not abridge the freedoms of expression protected by the 1st Amendment. = INCORPORATION DOCTRINE 14th amendment - adopted after Civil War states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

2. 4/15/ :24 PM
Development of INCORPORATION DOCTRINE - legal concept under the SC has nationalized the bill of rights by making most of its provisions to the states through the 14th amendment. Only the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, grand jury of 5th and prohibition against excessive fines and bail in the 8th have NOT been applied to states. Issue: CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER was brought up. This involves 2 elements: SERIOUSNESS: does a speech create a threat to the state and/or gov’t? and IMMEDIACY: is the threat so imminent that harm will happen before the state and/or gov’t gets to talk about it? FREEDOM OF RELIGION Establishment clause - Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion Free exercise clause - prohibits gov’t from interfering with the practice of religions. Sometimes conflict ex.chaplain on military base
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

3. 4/15/ :24 PM
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE - AN ESTABLISHED NATIONAL RELIGION PROHIBITED BY 1ST AMEND. Argument mixing religion and education Johnson passed to give aid (tax funds) to parochial schools b/c went to students not schools. Lemon v. Kurtzman SC declared aid to church related schools must: 1. have a secular (not religious) legislative purpose 2. have primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion 3. not foster an excessive gov’t entanglement with religion Equal Access Act - Congress made it lawful if any school received federal funds they must allow students groups to use facility for religious worship IF school opens its facilities for other student meetings. Also 1993 Court REQUIRED public schools that rent facilities to organizations to do the same for religious groups School prayer most controversial Engel v. Vitale SC ruled voluntary recitations of prayers or Bible passages when done as part of a classroom exercise in public schools violated the establishment clause.
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

4. 4/15/ :24 PM
Abington School District v. Schempp - Opinion - SC found unconstitutional because violated the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. A state program touching upon religion or religious institutions must have a valid secular purpose and must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. State insisted that its Bible reading served secular purposes...moral values,contradicted materialistic trends, perpetuation of our institutions and the teachings of literature, etc.... SC said that the school used the Bible for religious purposes. The Bible when used for these purposes constituted religious ceremony. Bible MAY be used for historical or literary studies. QUESTION:Suppose a school board in a largely Muslim neighborhood required a portion of the Koran to be read in classes each day. Would this be allowed under the Court’s Abington decision? NO, same reason. Civil authority and religious activity must remain SEPARATE. Gov’t must maintain STRICT NEUTRALITY, NEITHER AIDING nor OPPOSING religion. It is not unconstitutional to pray in school; may pray silently as much as they wish, Constitution discourages sponsorship or encouragement of prayer.
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

5. 4/15/ :24 PM
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE Prohibits gov’t from interfering with the practice of religions. Religion sometimes forbids actions that society thinks are necessary. ex. Muhammad Ali refused induction to the armed services during the Vietnam War b/c would violate his Muslim faith. Amish parents refuse to send their children to public schools - Wisconsin v. Yoder Jehovah’s witnesses and Christian Scientists refuse to accept blood transfusions and certain other medical treatment for themselves and children. Court allowed Amish parents to take their children out of school after the 8th grade. Amish community well established and its children would not be a burden to the state. A state can compel parents to send their children to an accredited school, parents have the right to choose parochial vs. public school (home schooled) People can become conscientious objectors to war on religious grounds. Court upholds laws and regulations forbidding polygamy, outlawing business activities on Sunday as applied to Orthodox Jews, denying tax exemptions to religious schools that discriminate on the basis of race, approving building a road through ground sacred to some Native Americans.
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

6. 4/15/ :24 PM
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Does “no law in the 1st Amendment really mean “No law”? Justice Holmes wrote “that most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting “FIRE” in a theater and CAUSING a PANIC” Courts have tried to draw the line separating permissible from impermissible speech Judges have had to BALANCE FREEDOM of expression against values like PUBLIC ORDER, NAT’L SECURITY, and RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL Certain forms of NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION are considered SYMBOLIC SPEECH and are protected under the 1st Amendment Other forms of expression are considered to be ACTION and ARE NOT PROTECTED Prior Restraint = a gov’ts action that prevent material from being published. (CENSORSHIP) SC case NEAR v. MINNESOTA Newspaper editor called local officials a string of names and the state closed down his business. SC ordered paper to be reopened. Writer or speaker could be punished for violating a law or someone’s rights after publication.
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

7. 4/15/ :24 PM
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier - SC ruled a high school newspaper was not a public forum and could be regulated in “any reasonable manner” by school officials. Free speech and public order War often brings gov’t efforts to enforce censorship Schenck v. US - Justice Holmes declared that gov’t can LIMIT SPEECH if it PROVOKES a CLEAR and PRESENT DANGER Charles Schenck, Sec’y American Socialist Party distributed 1000's of leaflets urging young men to resist the draft. Schenck was charged with impeding the war effort. SC - declared gov’t COULD LIMIT SPEECH if it provokes CLEAR & PRESENT danger of substantive evils. ONLY WHEN THE DANGER EXITS CAN GOV’t RESTRAIN SPEECH SMITH ACT = forbade the advocacy of violent overthrow of the American gov’t Dennis v. US - SC upheld prison sentences for communist party leaders for conspiring to overthrow gov’t with violence. Although group was tiny, it resembled yelling fire in an empty theater rather than a crowded one. Supreme Court ruled communist takeover was so grave a danger that gov’t could squelch their threat DUE TO THE SMITH ACT. (Valued national security over 1st amend rights)
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

8. 4/15/ :24 PM
McCarthyism 's Senator McCarthy unproven accusations that many public officials were Communists created an atmosphere in which broad restrictions were placed on freedom of expression 's - Court narrowed the interpretation of Smith Act so gov’t COULD NO LONGER use it to prosecute dissenters. Courts said OK to advocate the violent overthrow of the gov’t in abstract, but not actually to incite anyone to imminent lawless action. (Yates v. US 1957) (Brandenburg v. OH 1969) EXCEPTIONS to the general doctrine that prohibits PRIOR RESTRAINT Many argue that Gov’t should sometimes limit individual behavior on the grounds of NATIONAL SECURITY Courts have been reluctant but sometimes wartime brings censorship to protect classified info. ex. PENTAGON PAPERS NY Times v. US Nixon administration was unable to obtain an injunction against the Times that would prohibit publication of secret documents pertaining to American involvement in the Vietnam War
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

9. 4/15/ :24 PM
Free Press vs. free trial Bill of Rights can be a source of conflict. Constitution meant to guarantee right to a FAIR TRIAL and FREE PRESS A trial MAY NOT BE FAIR if pretrial PRESS COVERAGE makes it impossible to select an impartial jury. Journalists argue that the public has the right to know. Reporters sometimes want TRIALS TO BE OPEN TO THEM BUT they sometimes defend their right to keep some of their own files a secret in order to protect a CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE Few states have passed SHIELD LAWS to protect reporters in situations to withhold information from courts and where they need to protect a confidential source. Some states DO NOT have SHIELD LAWS SC ruled that in the absence of shield laws “the right to a fair trial preempts (takes the place of) the reporter’s right to protect sources (Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972) and has sustained the right of police to obtain a search warrant to search the files of a student newspaper (Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 1976)
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

10. 4/15/ :24 PM
Obscenity Courts have difficult time in this area. Public standards vary from TIME to TIME, PLACE to PLACE, PERSON to PERSON Work can be looked at as OBSCENE or ART No nationwide consensus exists that offensive material should be banned Newest issue in obscenity controversy involves claim some women’s groups that pornography degrades and dehumanizes women Courts ruled that STATES MAY PROTECT CHILDREN from obscenity (Osborne v. Ohio, 1991) ; ADULTS have access to same material Although SC held that “obscenity is not within the area of constitutionality protected speech or press (Roth v. US, 1957) it has proven difficult to determine just what is obscene (not clear)
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

11. 4/15/ :24 PM
Miller v. California Court tried to clarify what could be classified as obscene and therefore outside the 1st amendment protection Justice Burger wrote materials were obscene if the work as a whole a. appealed to a “prurient interest” in sex b. showed “patently offensive sexual contact” c. if it “lacked serious artistic, literacy, political, and scientific merit” Justice Burger also ruled that decisions should be made by local communities Another reason why obscenity convictions can be difficult is that no nationwide consensus exists that offensive material should be banned...at least not to adults Regulations aimed at keeping obscene material away from the young who are considered more vulnerable to its harmful influences are more popular and courts have protected children. Motion Picture Association of America is an example of keeping materials away from the young. Violation of federal law to receive sexually explicit photos of children through the mail 1991 SC upheld Ohio’s law forbidding possession of child porn ( Osborne v. Ohio, 1991) Internet makes porn to be distributed easily and rapidly
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

12. 4/15/ :24 PM
1996 Congress passed the Communications Decency Act - banning obscene material and criminalizing the transmission of indecent speech or images to anyone under 18 years of age SC overturned Communications Decency Act being very broad and vague and a violation of free speech SC views Internet similar to print media Libel - publication of statements known to be false that tend to damage a person’s reputation Slander - spoken defamation Libel and Slander ARE NOT PROTECTED by the 1st Amendment Libel and Slander involve FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION that involve competing values Libel cases MUST BALANCE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION with RESPECT for individual reputations If public debate is not FREE there can be NO DEMOCRACY Some reputations can be damaged in the process Court held that statements about PUBLIC FIGURES are LIBELOUS ONLY IF made with MALICE and RECKLESS DISREGARD for the truth (New York v. Sullivan, 1964) Private citizens have a lower standard to meet for winning libel lawsuits. They need only show statements were defamatory and the author was negligent. It is difficult to win a libel case and people do not wish to draw attention to critical statements about themselves.
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

13. 4/15/ :24 PM
Symbolic Speech Refers to actions that do not consist of speaking or writing but that express an opinion Tinker v. Des Moines - students wearing arm band to protest the Vietnam War Broadly interpreted FREEDOM OF SPEECH is a guarantee of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Doctrine of SYMBOLIC SPEECH is NOT PRECISE Burning a flag is PROTECTED SPEECH (Texas v. Johnson ) P.59 reg gov’t bk Burning a draft card IS NOT and (US v. O’Brian, 1968)burning draft card Content Neutral Test = 1. There is a law in place. 2. Knowingly mutilating gov’t documents. 3. Fed crime Wearing an armband, burning a flag, marching in a parade are examples of SYMBOLIC SPEECH; Refers to actions that do not consist of speaking or writing but that express an opinion Commercial Speech such as advertising is MORE RESTRICTED than expressions of opinion on religious, political or other matters
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

14. 4/15/ :24 PM
FTC - Federal Trade Commission decides what kinds of goods may be advertised on radio and TV and regulates the content of such advertising. Regulations changes with social mores and priorities. ex. 30 yrs ago - tampons could not be advertised on TV vs. cigarettes commercials were everywhere. Today situation is reversed. FTC make sure that advertisers DO NOT MAKE false claims for their products but truth in advertising does not prevent misleading promises. ex. ad imply the right mouthwash or deodorant will improve one’s love life...message is legal Courts have broadened its protection under the Constitution. Recent years court have struck down many restrictions as violations of freedom of speech. (including restraints against advertising for professional services and for certain products such as condoms) RADIO & TV more RESTRICTIONS than PRINT MEDIA FCC - Federal Communications Commission regulates the content and nature of radio & TV broadcasting Licensed station must comply with regs (certain percentage of broad cast time for public service, news, children’s programming, political candidates)
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

15. 4/15/ :24 PM
FCC regulates the use of obscene words b/c children might hear them the FCC fined Howard Stern 600,000 for indecency. If Stern’s comments were carried out by cable or satellite instead of airwaves he could have expressed himself with impunity. Technology has changed the line between broadcasting and private communications betw individuals. Freedom of Assembly Basis for forming interest groups, political parties, professional associations, picketing and protesting. 2 facets for freedom of assembly 1. literal right - gather together in order to make a statement to assemble This freedom can conflict with societal values when it disrupts public order, traffic flow, peace & quiet, or bystanders freedom to go about their business w/o interference Within reasonable limits called TIME, PLACE, and MANNER RESTRICTIONS, freedom of assembly includes: right to parade, picket, protest Group must apply to local city gov’t for a permit and post bond
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

16. 4/15/ :24 PM
Balance of freedom and order is tested when protest verges on harassment ex. Protesters lining up outside abortion clinics; courts set limits on how close protesters can picket on property, also can not parade in front of a residents property (doctor conducting abortions) 2. right to associate - with people who share a common interest ex NAACP v. Alabama - Alabama tries to harass NAACP to turn over its membership list. SC protected the right to assembly that NAACP did not have to reveal membership and subject its members to harassment. Search & Seizures Police cannot arrest someone without a reason Police need evidence to arrest and courts need evidence to convict Police need PROBABLE CAUSE - REASONABLE grounds to believe that someone is guilty of a crime; often police need physical evidence 4th Amend - specific in forbidding UNREASONABLE searches & seizures. To prevent abuse - courts cannot issue a search warrant UNLESS PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS Warrants specify AREA to be SEARCHED; MATERIAL SOUGHT in SEARCH
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

17. 4/15/ :24 PM
Warrant is NOT a constitutional requirement but a reasonable police search. Most searches are done WITHOUT WARRANT. These searches are VALID if: PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS, SEARCH NECESSARY TO PROTECT AN OFFICER’s SAFETY, SEARCH LIMITED TO MATERIAL RELEVANT TO SUSPECTED CRIME or WITHIN THE SUSPECT’s IMMEDIATE CONTROL. ex. aerial photos pg. 118 bottom; marijuana and chemical co EXCLUSIONARY RULE - rule that evidence no matter how incriminating CANNOT be introduced into a trial if it was not constitutionally obtained. Until 1961 rule applied only to federal gov’t SC case MAPP v. OHIO that 4th amend must be extended to states as well Critics of exclusionary rule argue that its strict application may permit guilty persons to go free because of police carelessness or innocent errors. The guilty SHOULD NOT go free due to technicalities. Supporters say that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty - defendant’s rights protect the ACCUSED not the guilty.
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

18. 4/15/ :24 PM
Courts have MADE EXCEPTIONS to the exclusionary rule in the 1980s. The Court allowed illegally obtained evidence that led the police to DISCOVERY that they would eventually would have made without it ex. Nix v. Williams - court allowed use of illegal obtained evidence with this evidence led police to discover that they eventually would have found without it ex. US v. Leon - Justices also decided to establish the GOOD-FAITH exception to the rule; evidence could be used if the police mistakenly thought they were operating under a constitutionally valid warrant. ex. Knowles v. Iowa Stopped for speeding and having NO probable cause search car and found drugs. Court said can not charge him with illegal possession. Self-Incrimination Burden of proof rests on the police and the prosecutors. Suspects can not be forced to help with own conviction 5th amend prohibits FORCED Self-Incrimination stating that “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

19. 4/15/ :24 PM
Under law the gov’t may guarantee suspects of IMMUNITY - exception from prosecution in exchange for suspects’ testimony regarding their own and others’ misdeeds. ex. Monica Lewinsky MIRANDA v. ARIZONA 1966 Ernesto Miranda picked up as a prime suspect for rape and kidnaping of an 18 yr old girl. Girl identified him in a lineup. Miranda questioned for 2 hours. During this time he was NOT told his constitutional right against self-incrimination nor his right to counsel. He confess enough info to lead to his conviction SC reversed conviction. This case established guidelines for police questioning. Suspects must be told: 1.they have a constitutional right to remain silent and may stop answering questions at any time 2.What they say can be used against them in a court of law 3.They have a right to have a lawyer present during questioning and that the court will provide an attorney if they cannot afford their own lawyer. Miranda ended up being murdered and suspect was read his rights.
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

20. 4/15/ :24 PM
Right to Counsel 6th Amend - protect individuals accused of crimes. Includes: right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses, and right to a speedy and public trial. Right to counsel ensured in federal court...not extended to people tried in state courts until the 60s. Until 1930s individuals were tried and sometimes convicted for capital offenses w/o a lawyer. ex. Powell v. Alabama , SC ordered the states to provide an attorney for poor defendants accused of CAPITAL Crimes. Most crimes are NOT capital crimes and tried in the STATE Gideon v. Wainwright SC extended the right to an attorney for everyone accused of a felony in a state court Trial by Jury Most cases are settled through the process called PLEA BARGAINING - bargain struck between the defendant’s lawyer and the prosecutor to the effect that the defendant will plead guilty to a lesser crime in exchange for the state’s promise not to prosecute the defendant for a more serious crime.
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

21. 4/15/ :24 PM
Critics believe that it allows many criminals to avoid the full punishment they deserve. Works to the advantage of both sides - saves the state the time and money that would spend on trial AND permits defendants to plead guilty to a lesser charge. SC eroded tradition of 12 jurors in state ct. permitting states to use fewer than 12 to convict with a less than unanimous vote Federal courts still employ juries of 12 persons and require unanimous votes for a criminal conviction. Cruel and Unusual Punishment 8th Amend - forbids cruel and unusual punishment but does not define phrase. 14th amend, bill of rights provision applies to the states. Furman v. Georgia - overturned death penalty law b/c its imposition was “freakish and random” Question of whether the DEATH PENALTY is cruel and unusual punishment---no ex. Gregg v. Georgia - upheld death penalty; extreme sanction suitable to the most extreme of crimes ex. MCCleskey v. Kemp - refused to rule that the death penalty violated equal protection of the law; 14th amendment - that there was no evidence that the juries intended to discriminate on basis of race
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

22. 4/15/ :24 PM
Death penalty is part of the justice system Court held it is constitutionally acceptable to execute yr old and mentally retarded persons. Courts made more difficult for criminals to file habeas corpus petitions that would delay executions Habeas corpus - ensure party’s imprisonment or detention is not illegal. To be used to test legality of an arrest or commitment, may be used to review 1. regularity of the extradition process 2. the right to or amount of bail 3. the jurisdiction of a court that has imposed a criminal sentence Right to Privacy Right to privacy - right to private personal life free from the intrusion of gov’t ex. birth control and abortion ex. Roe v. Wade - by 1st trimester ex. Planned Parenthood v. Casey - 24 hour waiting period, parental consent, given medical information
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

23. 4/15/ :24 PM
Bill of Rights - Freedom of religion implies right to exercise private beliefs, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, make persons secure in their own homes, private property cannot be seized without due process of law ex. Griswold v. Conneticut - concluding right to privacy includes right to family plan between husband and wife
Chapter 4
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.