Supreme Court Cases II. Miranda v. Arizona. 1966 Police arrested Miranda for kidnapping/rape Identified in lineup and confessed Never been advised of his right to an attorney present during interrogation
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Police arrested Miranda for kidnapping/rape
Identified in lineup and confessed
Never been advised of his right to an attorney present during interrogation
Miranda had been questioned, had confessed, and had signed a written statement without being told that he had a right to a lawyer; his confession was used at trial.
Miranda rights/5th amendment
Issue: Rights of Suspected Criminals
The Court said that if police DO NOT inform people they arrest about certain constitutional rights including:
The decision reversed the Arizona court's conviction of Ernesto Miranda on kidnapping and rape charges.
He is arrested
Parents were not called
Never interviewed the neighbor!
Juveniles have similar rights as adults.
OYEZ - In re Gault - Oral Argument
In re Gault
Issue: Rights of Juveniles
Students protest Vietnam war with black arm bands
Supreme Court ruled that this violated their 1st amendment right of free speech and EXPRESSION!
Issue: Students and Free Speech
Decision by Supreme Court stopped the death penalty under state laws in 1972!
Ruled that the death penalty amounted to cruel and unusual punishment (violates___ amendment)
39 states stopped it
Now, 38 states have rewritten death penalty laws to meet requirements of this case!
Issue: Legality of the Death Penalty
Ordered to turn over tapes of conversations about the break-in
He refused to turn over tapes
Ruling: PRESIDENT is not above the law
Ordered to give up the tapes
He resigned shortly after this
US v. Nixon
Issue: Powers of the President and Executive Privilege
Issue: Religion in schools
Teacher at a high school caught girls smoking in the bathroom
Allowed to smoke in some areas but not b-room
One said (tlo) she was smoking the other said she wasn’t.
Principal told TLO to give him her purse
Found cigs and rolling papers
Thought she was using…
Decided to search her purse even more!
Found weed, pipe, list of names -- assumed she was?
Upheld 4th amendment!
Appropriate Search and seizure applies to public schools tooNew Jersey v. TLO
Bars quota systems in college admissions
Allows admissions of colleges to have affirmative action programs giving advantage to minorities
Bakke had been rejected 2 times by the medical school, even though he had a higher grade point average than a number of minority candidates who were admitted.
As a result of the decision, Bakke was admitted to the medical school and graduated in 1982.
Issue: Legality of Affirmative Action
Wasn’t violation of 1st amendment!
b/c it was a school sponsored activity
Hazelwood Schools v. Kuhlmeier (1987)
Issue: Free Speech of Students
In bad taste but…
Protected under 1st amendment speech and expression!
Issue: Free Speech and Flag Burning
Allowed to “bus” students to make it more racially equal in schools
To promote integration of public schools.
Felt it was a good fix for the problem of racial imbalance among schools!
Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg
Issue: Forced Busing of Students
was picked TWICE by police for questioning.
He asked for his lawyer to be present, & his lawyer asked to see him…
but BOTH were told to wait until the questioning was over!
During police questioning, he made some statements that incriminated himself.
A motion was made to suppress the statements as evidence, but he was still charged with murder
.Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of the right to choose their own customers?
The Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce
and the Court concluded that places of public accommodation had no "right" to select guests.
1986 (free speech at school)
Student wrote a sexually explicit speech for commencement speech
student was suspended for 3 days for violating the school’s code of conduct and was removed from the list of those eligible to talk at graduation
His parents appealed the School District’s decision, and the Washington District Court upheld Frasier’s right to free speech
The U.S. Supreme Court took the case, disagreeing with the other courts, and ruled that the school board had acted appropriately.
Did Bethel School District violate the first amendment by punishing Matt and not upholding his freedom of speech?
“…The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board.”
1962- prayer and school: NO!
1951 the New York State Board of Regents (the State board of education) approved a 22-word “nondenominational prayer” for recitation each morning in the public schools of New York.
“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”
The Regents believed that the prayer could be a useful tool for the development of character and good citizenship among the students of the State of New York.
The prayer was offered to the school boards in the State for their use, and participation in the “prayer-exercise” was voluntary.
In New Hyde Park, New York, the Union Free School District directed the local principal to have the prayer “said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of the school day.”
Some parents objected the prayer, citing separation of church and state
The State appeals court upheld the use of the prayer, “so long as the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents' objection.”
The question before the Court involved the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Did the Regents of New York violate the religious freedom of students by providing time during the school day for this particular prayer?
Did the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment prevent schools from engaging in “religious activity”? Was the “wall of separation” between church and state breached in this case?
For Engel (the parents):The separation of church and state requires that government stay out of the business of prescribing religious activities of any kind. The Regents' prayer quite simply and clearly violated the 1st Amendment and should, therefore, be barred from the schools.
For the Regents of the State of New York:The New York Regents did not establish a religion by providing a prayer for those who wanted to say it. Countless religious elements are associated with governments and officials, reflecting the religious heritage of the nation. New York acted properly and constitutionally in providing an optional, nonsectarian prayer.
The Court found the New York Regents' prayer to be unconstitutional.
Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion for the 6-1 majority: “We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' Prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings…in the Regents' Prayer is a religious activity…”
The Court's decision was not, Black pointed out, antireligious. It sought, rather, only to affirm the separation between church and state. “It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers…”