1. Civil Rights and Freedoms
How due process protections related to the 4th, 5th , 6th and 14th Amendments effected the outcomes of several landmark US Supreme Court cases
Michael Quinones, NBCT

2. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APK: Activation of Prior Knowledge Write at least 2-3 sentences describing a time when… your rights/freedoms were taken away by a school, police or other government agency [Explain]
Question of the Day
How have U.S. Supreme Court rulings balanced the rights and freedoms of the individual with the need to maintain order?

3. Understanding Words -Read each of the sentences on the left and right
Understanding Words Read each of the sentences on the left and right Decide what each underlined word means Write the underlined word in a sentence of your own.
Even though the tongue was burned it could discriminate between Pepsi and Diet Pepsi.
With all of her prom date offers Tamika, and the fact she is tall, decided to discriminate against boys who were short.
Bob was blamed for breaking Mom’s fancy lamp but decided to incriminate Steve also when he spoke to Dad.
Nobody admitted to eating the chocolate pudding but the empty dish with brown residue in Sal’s room was very incriminating proof against him.
The hungry wolf seized the small rabbit by the throat then fled into the woods.
Janet had not made payments on her car as she had agreed so the bank seized the vehicle parked at her house.
Mark sought the counsel of his grandfather because he was unsure what to do.
After Margaret’s arrest she believed she had the right to legal counsel to defend her.

4. Charting Constitutional Issues, Grounds and Bases You have been given a copy of this sheet with descriptions of clauses in the U.S. Constitution that are part of the plaintiff’s argument and/or part of the basis/grounds of the Supreme Court’s opinion in their rulings. These clauses are cut out and printed on enlarged pieces of paper in the front of the room. As you learn about these Landmark cases and the rulings of the Court come to the front of the room and place the Constitutional clause you believe goes under the appropriate place [the Plaintiff’s Constitutional argument and/or the Constitutional Issues before the Court].
Name of the Case
Plaintiff’s Constitutional Argument or reason for appealing to High Court
Constitutional Grounds for Supreme Court’s Opinion

5. 1st Amendment Congress shall make no law….
Prohibiting the exercise of
Free speech….
4th Amendment Search and Seizure
The Right of the people to be secure in their persons….against unreasonable searches and seizures….no warrants shall issue…[without] probable cause…
5th Amendment Self-Incrimination No person shall be compelled in in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
6th Amendment
Right to a lawyer
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall…have the …right to have the assistance of counsel
8th Amendment
No…Cruel and unusual punishment inflicted….
14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause
No state shall deprive citizens from Equal Protection of the laws.
1st Amendment Establishment Clause Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

6. Gideon v Wainwright [1963]: The Homeless Drifter Case
Facts of the Case:
In 1961 a homeless, drifter named Clarence
Gideon was arrested on charges of petty
theft [he stole money from a cigarette
machine].
He was indigent [poor] to afford a
lawyer and wanted a free lawyer paid for
with tax money.
His request was denied so he defended
himself.
Most accounts say he was smart and
performed reasonably well in court for a
poorly educated person.
However, he was not a trained lawyer and
was convicted [found guilty] in Florida state
court and sentenced to 5 years prison.
Issues before Supreme Court:
Was Gideon’s conviction in state court valid because he did not have a lawyer to defend him?
Did Gideon have the right to a lawyer paid for by the government?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
Gideon’s right to legal counsel/lawyer were violated.
Gideon’s right to Equal Protection under the law were violated because all accused persons [rich or poor] have a right to a lawyer.
Gideon was given a new trial and found not guilty.
From then on poor accused person have been given public defenders [free lawyers].

7. Furman v Georgia [1972]: The Tough on Burglars Case
Issues before Supreme Court:
Was the murder conviction and death
sentence fair because the “murder”
may not have been intentional?
Was this an excessive punishment
and appropriate sentence for the type
of crime?
Facts of the Case:
A person awoke in the middle of
the night to find William Furman
robbing his home.
Furman gave two different versions
of what happened next during police
questioning.
[A] He told the police he fired
his weapon “blindly while I ran
away.”
[B] In court he admitted to tripping
while fleeing and the gun went off
accidentally.
He was found guilty of murder
because was committing another crime
at the same time [theft].
He was sentenced to die by execution.
The case was lumped together with two
other similar cases where people received
a death sentence for rape.
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
Death sentences were too arbitrary [meaning it applied to too many cases].
The Court’s opinion was that it was too cruel and unusual of punishment.
The Court also ruled that his life was being deprived without due process of law
The Court was split 5-4 in this case

8. Gregg v Georgia [1976]: “It’s Not Cruel Case”
Facts of the Case:
Troy Leon Gregg was found guilty of
murdering a hitchhiker in a Georgia
state court.
He had a long and violent criminal
record.
He was eventually sentenced to death.
He along with 4 other men from different
states convicted of similar crimes
appealed their cases to the Supreme
Court based on the Furman precedent.
Issues before Supreme Court:
Was the decision in the Furman case still
valid?
Were these cases different than the
Furman case?
Was the punishment here cruel and
usual?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that
state legislatures, after the Furman
decision, had changed the requirements
for death sentences [offenders had to have long records of violence].
The sentences were not excessive because they were for repeat offenders.

9. Regents of the University of California v Bakke: “The Med School Quota Case”
Facts of the Case:
Allan Bakke believed he had been
discriminated against, because he was
white, after he applied to medical
school and was rejected.
The medical school in California he
applied to had different programs to get
in.
One for “disadvantaged” and one for
“regular” students.
After being rejected twice and learning
non-white students with lower scores
than he were admitted he sued.
California State Courts later ordered Bakke
admitted because the medical school
illegally created quotas [slots specially set
aside] for non-whites which was considered
discrimination.
The Regents of the University of California
appealed the decision to the High Court.
Issues before Supreme Court:
Were racial quotas a fair method of
preventing racism in college entrance?
Were racial quotas preventing everyone
from equal treatment?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
Race could only be one factor used to
consider whether to allow a student
into a school.
If it was the sole or major reason it was in violation of equal protection under the law.

10. New Jersey v T.L.O. “The Teen Drug Case”
Facts of the Case:
Two teenage girls were caught smoking
in a girls’ school bathroom.
One girl who denied smoking, Tracy Lois
Odom had her purse searched by a vice
principal.
Marijuana, a pipe, money and plastic bags
were found in the purse [along with a list of
“customers”].
The girl was suspended, arrested and
charged with possession with intent to sell.
She was sentenced to one year probation
which she appealed.
The case went back and forth in the courts
and New Jersey appealed the U.S. Court of
Appeals’ decision.
Issues before Supreme Court:
Given the circumstances was the
search reasonable?
Did the vice principal have a good
Reason to search T.L.O.’s purse?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The Court ruled the search reasonable
because of doubt created by one student
admitting to smoking and the other denying
it. To maintain order and prevent rules from
being violated he had probable cause to
search the bag with drugs in plain view.
According to the Court the search was
valid and the drugs were legal to use as
evidence. This ruling established that school
officials only needed reasonable suspicion
To search students.

11. Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District: “The Peace Sign Armband Case”
Facts of the Case:
Two Des Moines, Iowa high school
students wanted to protest [“speak
out” against] the Vietnam War.
They chose to wear black arm
bands to freely express their
disapproval for dead American
soldiers.
Their school told them to remove
the armbands because it was
disruptive.
They refused and were suspended.
The case was eventually appealed to
the High Court.
Issues before Supreme Court:
Was the behavior of the Tinkers
disruptive to the school?
Were the armbands an acceptable
and protected from of free
expression?
Is expression a form of “speech?”
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that
the behavior was not disruptive.
Non-verbal, peaceful expression in
school is a protected form of speech.

12. Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier: “The Limited Written School Speech Case”
Facts of the Case:
Students working on articles for a project
at Hazelwood H.S. in Missouri wanted to
publish some articles about “private”
subjects.
Some of the subjects were teen
pregnancies and divorced parents.
The writers believed that since the names
were changed to fake names it was okay.
The principal did not allow the articles to
be published because the identities were
not hidden enough [it was too obvious].
The writers sued and were eventually
granted Certiorari.
Issues before Supreme Court:
Did the writers have a right to publish
private information in a semi-public way
in school?
Did the principal have a right to stop
what he thought was disruptive
behavior?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that because the writing was not in a completely public paper the school was allowed to restrict free expression in the student newspaper.

13. Engel v Vitale: “The Public School Prayer Case” Facts of the Case:
Many families in New Hyde Park, New York
objected to a school prayer that opened
school each day.
Even though the prayer was not specific to
any one religion it mentioned “Almighty
God.”
Though students were not required to recite
the prayer everyone heard it over the
intercom.
Almighty God, we acknowledge our
dependence upon Thee, and we beg
Thy blessings upon us, our parents,
our teachers and our country.
Amen.
Issues before Supreme Court:
Was the prayer a violation of the
principle of separation of church and state?
Can a government school legally expose
children to a religious prayer?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that since
the school was funded by the government
religious prayers violated the separation
of church and state.

14. Miranda v Arizona: “The Right to Remain Silent Case”
Issues before Supreme Court:
Was the evidence obtained by police
valid?
Did the police make Miranda aware of his
right to not incriminate himself?
Facts of the Case:
In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with kidnapping and rape.
During his initial interrogation he denied involvement but later under the stress of police questioning he finally confessed.
At his interrogation Miranda had no lawyer present.
Miranda was found guilty and was convicted of the charges in the state court of Arizona. His conviction was appealed and made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that suspects [people arrested and accused of crimes] must be informed of their right against self-incrimination by the police while they are being arrested.
Results of the Ruling:
All states now read the version of
the following statement to accused suspects:
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 have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?

15. Mapp v Ohio: “The Porno Pics Case”
Issues before Supreme Court:
Was the search of Mapp’s house legal?
Can police seize items that are not in plain view
and “hold them against you?”
Must you have a specific search warrant?
Facts of the Case:
The home of well known woman who dated a bookmaker [illegal bet taker] Dollree Mapp’s home was searched by police because of a bomb threat.
Police did not have a warrant [written permission].
The search uncovered pornography [pictures and magazines] which at the time was illegal. Mapp was arrested.
Based on the evidence found at the residence she was convicted in Ohio state court and sent to prison.
Her conviction was appealed and made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that the search of Mapp’s house was illegal because
There was no warrant and the items found were not in plain view.
The items found were not even the type the police were looking for even they had warrant.
The evidence found against Mapp could be excluded.
Therefore the search was a violation of Mapp’s 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

16. Bethel School District No
Bethel School District No. 403 v Fraser: “The Limited Free School Speech Case”
Facts of the Case:
A high school senior gave a speech nominating
a friend for Class President that was filled
With suggestive language:
"I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most [of] all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts - he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally - he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end - even the climax, for each and every one of you. So please vote for Jeff Kuhlman, as he'll never come between us and the best our school can be."
He was suspended from school for 2 days.
His suspension was reversed by the U.S. Court
of Appeals.
The Bethel School District appealed to the
High Court to reinstate the suspension.
Issues before Supreme Court:
Was the school allowed to punish students
for speech considered disruptive?
Was Fraser within his “rights” to say what
he wanted to say?
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that the
Unrestricted Freedom of speech did not protect Fraser because his words were disruptive unlike the behavior of the Tinkers.
The school was correct in their decision to suspend and it was reinstated.

17. Texas v Johnson: “The Burnt Flag Case”
Issues before Supreme Court:
Were Johnson’s actions a protected
form of expression even though it
was very unpatriotic and insulting?
Can states make laws protecting
certain symbols?
Facts of the Case:
As a way to protest against President
Ronald Reagan and his policies Gregory
Johnson burned an American flag at the
Republican Convention in Dallas, Texas.
He was eventually sentenced to 1 year in jail
and a $2,000 fine by the state of Texas.
48 out of 50 states at that time had laws
banning abuse to the U.S. flag.
His conviction was overturned and upheld by
all courts on appeal.
The State of Texas appealed to the High
Court.
Ruling by the Supreme Court:
The opinion of the Court was that
although this expression was very offensive
to democracy and its symbol the symbolic
action was an acceptable form of protected
speech.

18. Image Sources http://www.rashkind.com/Gideon/Gideon_poolroom.jpg