U.S. Supreme Court Cases Makayla Putman, Matthew Esken, Megan Rich, & Sam Fagel

DC v. Heller (2008) Doc. No Argued: March 17, 2008 Decided: June 25, 2008

Major Points DC v. Heller The District of Columbia Code made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the registration of handguns (chief of police could issue one-year licenses for handguns). But owners of legal firearms were required to keep them unloaded and unable to be triggered at all times unless the firearms were located in a place of business or being used for legal rec. activities. Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant parts of the Code and argued that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license.

What do you think…? Do the provisions of the District of Columbia Code that restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment?

The Supreme Court decided... The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism violate the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority

McDonald v. Chicago (2009) Doc. No. 561 US 742 Argued: March 1 st 2010 Decided: June 27 th 2010

Major Points McDonald v. Chicago A long term resident of Chicago named Otis McDonald witnessed his neighborhood declining and being taken over by drug dealers and gangs, even his garage was broken into several times. He owned shotguns from previously being a hunter; however, wanted to buy a handgun for personal safety. There was a handgun ban in Chicago that took place in 1982 and McDonald was unable to legally own a handgun and along with three other residents of the neighborhood, he filed a lawsuit questioning the second amendment, the right to bear arms.

What do you think…? Do you think that the court ruled that the handgun ban was unconstitutional due to the 2 nd Amendment or do you think that they decided the gun ban was constitutional and did not permit under law that McDonald could own a handgun for personal protection?

The Supreme Court decided… The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Doc. No. 367 U.S. 643 Date Argued: March 29, 1961 Date Decided: June 19, 1961

Major Points Mapp v. Ohio On May 23 rd, 1957, police officers in Cleveland, Ohio received an anonymous tip by phone phone that Virgil Ogletree (number of operator who was wanted for questioning in bombing of future boxing promoter Don Kings’ home, might be found at Mapp’s house well as illegal betting slips. Officers went home and asked for permission but Mapp denied after consulting her lawyer without them having a search warrant. Three hours later, police arrived and knocked down the door when she didn’t answer. She asked for the warrant and was not shown the warrant. When searching Mapps second floor, police handcuffed her for being belligerent. They searched the house and found Ogletree, as well as illegal betting silos and paraphernalia. She was arrested and charged. Several months later, she was prosecuted for possession of pornographic books that the police also found and was sentenced to one to seven years in prison.

What do you think…? Do you think that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mapp due to the lack of presenting the alleged warrant before searching her house?

The court ruled… The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of Mapp. The court overturned the conviction, and five justices found that the states were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4 th Amendment. This ruling officially established the exclusionary rule.

John W. Terry v. State of Ohio Doc. No U.S. 1 Argued: December 11, 1967 Decided: June 9, 1968

Major Points John W. Terry v. Ohio A Cleveland undercover detective suspected three men of being involved with suspicious activities. After following them he determined that he would reveal himself as an officer. He ordered the men to the ground and frisked them, and he found two concealed weapons under the men’s coats. He arrested the men for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. The case was held because Terry felt that the arrest went against unreasonable search and seizure. He felt that he had just been searched for no justifiable reason.

What do you think…? Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

The Supreme Court ruled... The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the detective who searched Terry 8-1 and found concealed weapons that were not licensed. The stop and frisk rude is what allowed the detective to win the case as well as the exclusionary rule that was determined in the Mapp v. Ohio Supreme Court case. On June 10th, 1968, Terry and his friend were charged for carrying a concealed weapon without a license.

Sources District of Columbia v. Heller. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from 290https:// 290 McDonald v. Chicago. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from Mapp v. Ohio. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from Terry v. Ohio. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from