1 / 83

Heckler’s Veto

Heckler’s Veto. Prior Restraint. Fighting Words. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. Why is freedom of the press important to our Democracy? Censorship - Prior restraint - Pentagon Papers - Obscene Publications - Advertising - The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates this area. Cigarettes

yosef
Download Presentation

Heckler’s Veto

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Heckler’s Veto

  2. Prior Restraint

  3. Fighting Words

  4. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS • Why is freedom of the press important to our Democracy? • Censorship- • Prior restraint- • Pentagon Papers - • Obscene Publications- • Advertising- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates this area. • Cigarettes • Alcohol • Limits on Mass Media- • Movies- • Radio- • Freedom Of Information Act- • Sunshine Laws- • Shield Laws-

  5. Freedom of Religion • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. • Establishment Clause • Free Exercise Clause

  6. Everson v. Board of Education • New Jersey School Bus Case

  7. Engel v. Vitale • Outlawed reading of the Bible in public schools

  8. Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe • Outlawed student led prayers at high school Football games

  9. Westside Community Schools v. Mergens • Allowed for after school religious groups

  10. Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District • Intelligent Design Case

  11. Aid to Public Schools • Must pass the lemon test • Lemon v. Kurtzman

  12. Merry Christmahanaquanzika • Seasonal religious displays are allowed on public property as long as other religions or secular displays also accompany the displays.

  13. Freedom Of Assembly • ASSEMBLY IN PUBLIC PLACES: • ASSEMBLY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY: • REGULATIONS ON ASSEMBLIES: • CONFLICTS WITH OTHER RIGHTS: Freedom of Assembly may not interfere with the functions of government, public interest, or the basic rights of others. • UNPOPULAR ASSEMBLIES: • Heckler’s Veto: Hostile Onlookers can stop an otherwise peaceful Assembly

  14. Due Process Under the Bill Of Rights • Principle of Due Process • Protects citizens from arbitrary or unjustified acts by the government • Two aspects of Due Process • Substantive • Procedural

  15. Being safe in you home and Person. • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  16. Illegal search and seizure • How the police secure a warrant • They appear before a judge or magistrate • Police swear under oath they have probable cause • The judge issues a warrant that describes the place to be searched and the specific persons or items to be seized.

  17. Probable Cause • Reasonable belief a crime is being committed or has been committed

  18. Florida v. J.L. • Anonymous tip

  19. Minnesota v. Carter • Plain View

  20. Lidster v. Illinois • Informational Roadblocks

  21. Arrests • When the police make an arrest, they do NOT need a warrant to search the area in which a suspect may gain access to a weapon.

  22. Warrant for Arrest • Most arrests occur without one….Police can arrest a person without a warrant provided they have reason to believe a person has committed or is about to commit a crime.

  23. Fleeing at the sight of police • Illinois v. Wardlow

  24. Terry v. Ohio

  25. Sibron v. New York

  26. Automobiles • Police need no warrant to search a car, plane, or boat they believe involved in illegal activity. Movable crime scene.

  27. Mapp v. Ohio

  28. Search and Seizure Continued • Can the police use evidence against the accused if the evidence found did not appear on the warrant? • It Depends • Nix v. Williams • US v. Leon • Arizona v. Evans • Maryland v. Garrison

  29. Nix v. Williams • Williams was arrested for the murder of a ten-year-old girl who's body he disposed of along a gravel road. State law enforcement officials engaged in a massive search for the child's body. During the search, after responding to an officer's appeal for assistance, Williams made statements to the police (without an attorney present) which helped lead the searchers to the child's body. The defendant's Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest. • Question Presented • Should evidence resulting in an arrest be excluded from trial because it was improperly obtained? • Conclusion • No. The Court relied on the "inevitable discovery doctrine," as it held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the child's body as evidence since it was clear that the volunteer search teams would have discovered the body even absent Williams's statements.

  30. US v. Leon • The exclusionary rule requires that evidence illegally seized must be excluded from criminal trials. Leon was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous informant's tip. The police applied to a judge for a search warrant of Leon's home based on the evidence from their surveillance. A judge issued the warrant and the police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. Leon was indicted for violating federal drug laws. A judge concluded that the affidavit for the search warrant was insufficient; it did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant. Thus, the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at Leon's trial. • Question Presented • Is there a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule? • Conclusion • Yes, there is such an exception. The justices held that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial. The exclusionary rule, argued the majority, is not a right but a remedy justified by its ability to deter illegal police conduct. In Leon, the costs of the exclusionary rule outweighed the benefits. The exclusionary rule is costly to society: Guilty defendants go unpunished and people lose respect for the law. The benefits of the exclusionary rule are uncertain: The rule cannot deter police in a case like Leon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge.

  31. Arizona v. Evans • The police stopped Evans for driving the wrong way down a one-way street. After running his driver's license through their computer, the police found that there was a warrant out for his arrest. Arresting Evans, the police searched his car and found marijuana. • A search "incident to arrest" is generally understood to be constitutional. However, it turned out that the misdemeanor warrant that appeared on the police officer's computer was a mistake. The warrant had been withdrawn. At his trial, Evans argued that the computer mistake meant the search of his car was illegal. Because his car was illegally searched, he stated, the exclusionary rule should apply to the marijuana the police found. • The Supreme Court of Arizona basically agreed with Evans that the search and resulting drug charges were unconstitutional. They ruled that because the exclusionary rule is meant to deter police employees from making mistakes in the process of searching for and seizing evidence, computer records were not exempt from the rule. • In 1994, the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear the case upon appeal from the Arizona police. • Questions to Consider: • What is the purpose of the exclusionary rule? • Should it apply in this case? Why or why not? • Predict the outcome of the case.

  32. Arizona v. Evans---Outcome • They decided that the exclusionary rule was created to stop police misconduct. In this case, the Court said no misconduct had occurred. • The Court also decided that, because there is no evidence that record keeping employees were inclined to ignore the Fourth Amendment, the computer error was probably a result of pure human error rather than an attempt to undermine the rights of individuals. • Without evidence that extending the exclusionary rule to mistakes made by record keeping employees would change police behavior, there was no reason to believe that finding for Evans in this case would make a police officer more accurate. After all, they determined, the officer was just doing his job.

  33. Maryland v. Garrison • Officers had a warrant to search for drugs on the 3rd floor of a building. Not realizing there were two apartments, they searched the wrong one and found drugs.. Can those drugs be used as evidence against the occupants of the apartment since it was an honest mistake.

  34. Limiting the scope of the Exclusionary rule • Inevitable Discovery • “Good Faith” Exception • “Honest” Mistakes

  35. What if illegally obtained evidence leads to the collection of other evidence through the use of a warrant? • Fruit of the poisonous treeevidence gathered with the aid of information obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence (the "tree") is tainted, then anything gained from it (the "fruit") would be likewise.

  36. Searches By Officials Without A Warrant • Airports and borders • Customs agents and mail • EPA Fly-overs • Teacher and Administrator searches

  37. School Drug Testing • Can members of sports teams be subject to random school drug testing? • What about chess club, band, and quiz bowl members? • Complete “One Test Too Many”

  38. Vernonia School Dist. V. Acton Facts of the Case • An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes. James Acton, a student, was denied participation in his school's football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testing.

  39. Vernonia Decision • Question Presented • Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? • Conclusion • No. The reasonableness of a search is judged by "balancing the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." In the case of high school athletes who are under State supervision during school hours, they are subject to greater control than over free adults (in loco parentis) . The privacy interests compromised by urine samples are negligible since the conditions of collection are similar to public restrooms, and the results are viewed only by limited authorities. Furthermore, the governmental concern over the safety of minors under their supervision overrides the minimal, if any, intrusion in student-athletes' privacy.

  40. New Jersey v. TLO • New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) upheld the search of lockers and other personal space while on school property, indicating that students are not afforded the same rights as adults in other settings and stating that while acting in loco parentis, school officials are still representatives of the state.

  41. Electronic Surveillance Requires a Warrant • Katz v. The United States • Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal, Katz challenged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari.

  42. Katz Decision • Question Presented • Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone? • Conclusion • Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court. A concurring opinion by John Marshall Harlan introduced the idea of a 'reasonable' expectation of Fourth Amendment protection.

  43. Gideon v. Wainright • Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.

  44. Gideon Question • Did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

  45. Gideon Decision • In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  46. Escobedo v. Illinois • Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. Over several hours, the police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo's lawyer sought unsuccessfully to consult with his client. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder.

  47. Escobedo Question • Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel during questioning as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment?

  48. Escobedo Decision • Yes. Justice Goldberg, in his majority opinion, spoke for the first time of "an absolute right to remain silent." Escobedo had not been adequately informed of his consitutitonal right to remain silent rather than to be forced to incriminate himself. The case has lost authority as precedent as the arguments in police interrogation and confession cases have shifted from the Sixth Amendment to the Fifth Amendment, emphasizing whether the appropriate warnings have been given and given correctly, and whether the right to remain silent has been waived.

  49. Miranda v. Arizona • In 1963, Ernesto Miranda (born in Mesa, Arizona in 1941, and living in Phoenix, Arizona with only an elementary school education) was arrested for robbery, kidnapping and rape. He was interrogated by police and confessed. At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as evidence. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years on both charges. Miranda's lawyer, Alvin Moore, appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court but the charges were upheld.

More Related