1. Landmark

2.  1. Why did Linda Brown’s parents file this suit? ◦ To force the schools to admit her to the nearby, but segregated school for white students. Importance: a. used to force school desegregation. b. overturned Plessy v Ferguson

3.  2. Which Amendment does this case deal with? ◦ 14 th = rights of citizens

4.  3. What two things did the attorneys for the Brown’s site which they felt resulted from segregation in schools? ◦ legal segregation resulted in both  fundamentally unequal education  Low self esteem among minority students

5.  4. What did the attorneys say the law of segregation implied about African Americans? ◦ That African Americans were “inherently” inferior to whites

6.  5. Which prior case of the court was this case trying to overturn that had ruled that separate but equal was legal? ◦ Plessy V Ferguson  The arrest of Homer Plessy on June 7, 1892, was part of a planned challenge to the 1890 Louisiana Separate Car Act, a small group of black professionals in New Orleans brought the suit. The committee’s strategy was to have someone with mixed blood violate the law, which would allow Tourgée to question the law's arbitrariness. Homer Plessy, a native of south Louisiana who could "pass" as white, agreed to be the test case. The committee arranged with the railroad conductor and with a private detective to detain Plessy until he was arrested. When Plessy appeared before the Louisiana district court, the court ruled that a state had the constitutional power to regulate railroad companies operating solely within its borders and concluded that the Louisiana Separate Car Act was constitutional. The decision was appealed to the state supreme court in 1893 and was appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896.  According to this distinction, blacks and whites were politically equal (in the sense that they had the same political rights) but socially unequal (blacks were not as socially advanced as whites): so separate but equal was legal.

7.  6. How did Chief Justin Warren sum up the unanimous decision of the court on this case?  To separate (some children) from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.

8.  1. This case reevaluated the role of which amendment as it applied to State Judicial systems? ◦ 14 th = rights of citizens

9.  8. Why did the police go to Mapp’s home? ◦ Looking for suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment

10.  9. What did Dollree Mapp ask the police for? ◦ Search Warrant

11.  10. What was she arrested and charge with? ◦ Possession of pornographic material ◦ When they reached her basement they found a trunk containing "lewd and lascivious" books, pictures, and photographs. [ Mapp said she was holding the trunk for a friend and was not aware of its contents.

12.  11. What two amendments are involved in this case? ◦ 4 th – search and seizure ◦ 14 th – rights of citizens

13.  12. According to Justice Tom Clark, what was the decision of the court? ◦ We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution (is) inadmissible in a state court….Were it otherwise…the assurance against unreasonable….searches and seizures would be (meaningless).

14.  13. Because of this ruling, evidence gained by what kind of search became inadmissible in every court including state courts? ◦ illegal

15.  14. This case states that constitutional guarantees of what for the accused had to be upheld? ◦ Due process- police must follow all legal procedures correctly.  Kolender v Lawson– established right to due process

16.  Edward Lawson was a law-abiding black man of unusual deportment (he wore his hair in long dreadlocks). Lawson was frequently subjected to police questioning and harassment in San Diego County, California where he lived when as a pedestrian he walked in so-called "white neighborhoods." He was detained or arrested approximately 15 times within 18 months, was prosecuted twice, and was convicted once (the second charge was dismissed). Edward Lawson dreadlocks  Lawson challenged California Penal Code §647(e), [1] which required persons who loiter or wander on the streets to identify themselves and account for their presence when requested by a peace officer to do so. [1]  The Court held that the law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave excessive discretion to the police (in the absence of probable cause to arrest) whether to stop and interrogate a suspect or leave him alone. [ [

17.  15 What was Miranda convicted of? ◦ Kidnapping and rape

18.  16. What two amendments are involved in this case? ◦ 5 th ◦ 6 th

19.  17. What two rights were the police accused of violating? ◦ Right to remain silent –  5 th amendment ◦ Right to legal council –  6 th amendment

20.  18. What was the ruling in this case? Why? ◦ Miranda’s conviction was overturned ◦ Miranda was not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation, nor was his right to be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any other manner.

21.  19. What is a Miranda Warning and when must it be given? ◦ A warning informing you of your rights such as to remain silent and have legal council.  You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you? ◦ When subject to questioning by police in a criminal investigation.

22.  21. What was the issue of this case?  Abortion  In September 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant. She returned to Dallas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped, because then she could obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas' anti-abortion laws allowed abortion in the cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed, as there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the unauthorized site shuttered, closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.Norma L. McCorveyDallasTexasLinda CoffeeSarah Weddington  She already had 1 child and had put one up for adoption. The trial took 3 years. In this time the child was born and placed for adoption.

23.  21. What two accepted doctrines were on the opposite sides of this case? ◦ 1. individual’s right to privacy ◦ 2. compelling and overriding interests of a state

24.  22. As a Constitutional issue the case involved what two things? ◦ 1. right to privacy ◦ 2. police power of a state

25.  23. Those for Roe, argued that since the fetus has not been declared a person by any court it did not have any legal right to what? ◦ life

26.  24. What was the court’s decision? ◦ Agreed with Roe and upheld her right to terminate a pregnancy in the 1 st trimester (90days) of a pregnancy.

27.  25. Did the court make a statement on when life begins? ◦ Court did not commit to a position on when life begins

28.  The Supreme Court held that a slave was property, not a citizen, and thus had no rights under the Consitution. Therefore Scott could not bring suit in court.  This came before the 14 th Amendment defined citizenship.

29.  This ruling held that public school officials can search a student’s property for evidence of wrongdoing without having probable cause to believe that the student did anything wrong.

30.  Held that the 4 th Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures does not require a search warrant to search inside an automobile as long as police have probable cause to believe that the object to be searched contains contraband.

31.  Ruled that the administration of the school has full censorship power over any yearbook, paper, play etc produced in connection with school activities.