Summarize the 4th amendment. DO now 8/22/16 Summarize the 4th amendment.

Vocabulary/case exam thursday Forensic Science Law

Landmark Cases Forensic Science Law

United States fourth ammendment The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

Fourth amendment explained How does it protect citizens? The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

Fourth amendment explained Unless there is sufficient evidence/probable cause, a warrant must be served BEFORE a search by ANY law enforcement entity/officer. Warrant: a document issued by a legal or government official authorizing the police or some other body to make an arrest, search premises, or carry out some other action relating to the administration of justice.

Fifth ammendment The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "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."

Fifth ammendment The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case.

The Miranda Case Miranda V Arizona 1966 The Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.

The Miranda case What happened? Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.

Miranda case Outcome of the case: The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda This decision gave rise to what has become known as the Miranda Warning: you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you.

Frye case/standard This standard comes from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), a case discussing the admissibility of polygraph test as evidence. The Court in Frye held that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted.

Frye case/standard The court wrote:Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while the courts will go a long way in admitting experimental testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. (Emphasis added.)

Frye case/standard What does it mean? To meet the Frye standard, scientific evidence presented to the court must be interpreted by the court as "generally accepted" by a meaningful segment of the associated scientific community. This applies to procedures, principles or techniques that may be presented in the proceedings of a court case.

Frye case/standard What does this mean? In practical application of this standard, those who were proponents of a widely disputed scientific issue had to provide a number of experts to speak to the validity of the science behind the issue in question.

Frye case/standard What does this mean? Novel techniques, placed under the scrutiny of this standard forced courts to examine papers, books and judicial precedents on the subject at hand to make determinations as to the reliability and "general acceptance.

Frye case/standard Must be scientifically valid Must be repeatable Must be peer reviewed Must be maintained (updated)

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1993 products liability case in which the Supreme Court resolved the debate over admissibility standards for scientific evidence in court. The plaintiffs, two children and their parents, sued Merrell Dow in California state court alleging that the children’s limb defects were caused by their mothers’ use of Bendectin.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Bendectin is a drug which was manufactured by Merrell Dow and prescribed routinely to alleviate “morning sickness” during pregnancy. Science could not identify a precise causal mechanism linking Bendectin to birth defects. Statistical evidence derived from epidemiological studies were offered in lieu of more “concrete” evidence, but it was vulnerable to manipulation and produced contradictory conclusions.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Merrell Dow claimed that because there was no epidemiological evidence linking Bendectin to birth defects, then the plaintiffs would not be able to offer any kind of “good” (i.e. “generally accepted”) scientific evidence that it did. Daubert countered this by offering a reanalysis of the same epidemiological data as well as several other types of evidence.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Daubert plaintiffs then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to resolve the long-standing controversy over whether or not the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded the common law Frye rule as the admissibility standard scientific evidence in court.