Civil Rights and Freedoms How due process protections related to the 4 th, 5 th, 6 th and 14 th Amendments effected the outcomes of several landmark US

Civil Rights and Civil Rights and FreedomsFreedoms

How due process protections How due process protections related to the 4related to the 4thth, 5, 5thth , 6 , 6thth and and 1414thth Amendments effected the Amendments effected the outcomes of several landmark outcomes of several landmark

US Supreme Court cases US Supreme Court cases

Michael Quinones, NBCTwww.socialstudiesguy.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

APK: Activation of Prior KnowledgeWrite 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?

Understanding WordsUnderstanding Words -Read each of the sentences on the left and right.-Read each of the sentences on the left and right.

-Decide what each underlined word means. -Decide what each underlined word means. -Write the underlined word in a sentence of your own. -Write the underlined word in a sentence of your own.

The hungry wolf The hungry wolf seized seized the the small rabbit by the throat then small rabbit by the throat then fled into the woods.fled into the woods.

Janet had not made payments Janet had not made payments on her car as she had agreed on her car as she had agreed so the bank so the bank seizedseized the vehicle the vehicle parked at her house.parked at her house.

Mark sought the Mark sought the counsel counsel of of his grandfather because he his grandfather because he was unsure what to do.was unsure what to do.

After Margaret’s arrest she After Margaret’s arrest she believed she had the right to believed she had the right to legal legal counselcounsel to defend her. to defend her.

Even though the tongue was Even though the tongue was burned it could burned it could discriminatediscriminate between Pepsi and Diet Pepsi. between Pepsi and Diet Pepsi.

With all of her prom date offers With all of her prom date offers Tamika, and the fact she is tall, Tamika, and the fact she is tall, decided to decided to discriminatediscriminate against against boys who were short. boys who were short.

Bob was blamed for breaking Bob was blamed for breaking Mom’s fancy lamp but decided to Mom’s fancy lamp but decided to incriminateincriminate Steve also when he Steve also when he spoke to Dad. spoke to Dad.

Nobody admitted to eating the Nobody admitted to eating the chocolate pudding but the empty chocolate pudding but the empty dish with brown residue in Sal’s dish with brown residue in Sal’s room was very room was very incriminatingincriminating proof proof against him.against him.

Charting Constitutional Charting Constitutional IssuesIssues, , GroundsGrounds and and BasesBasesYou have been given a copy of this sheet with descriptions of clauses in the U.S. Constitution that are part of the 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.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 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 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 clause you believe goes under the appropriate place [the Plaintiff’s ConstitutionalPlaintiff’s Constitutional argument and/or the argument and/or the Constitutional Issues before the CourtConstitutional Issues before the Court].].

Name of the CaseName of the Case Plaintiff’s Constitutional Argument or Plaintiff’s Constitutional Argument or reason for appealing to High Courtreason for appealing to High Court

Constitutional Grounds for Constitutional Grounds for Supreme Court’s Opinion Supreme Court’s Opinion

1st Amendment1st Amendment

Congress shall make no Congress shall make no law….law….

Prohibiting the exercise of Prohibiting the exercise of

Free speechFree speech….….

4th Amendment4th Amendment Search and Seizure Search and Seizure

The Right of the people to The Right of the people to be secure in their be secure in their persons….against persons….against unreasonable searches and unreasonable searches and seizures….no warrants shall seizures….no warrants shall issue…[without] probable issue…[without] probable cause…cause…

5th Amendment5th Amendment

Self-IncriminationSelf-Incrimination

No person shall be No person shall be compelled in compelled in in any criminal case to be a in any criminal case to be a witness against himselfwitness against himself..


Right to a lawyerRight to a lawyer

In all criminal prosecutions, In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall…have the the accused shall…have the ……right to have the right to have the

assistance of counselassistance of counsel


No…Cruel and unusual No…Cruel and unusual punishment inflicted….punishment inflicted….

14th Amendment14th Amendment Equal Equal Protection ClauseProtection Clause

No state shall deprive No state shall deprive citizens from Equal citizens from Equal Protection of the laws.Protection of the laws.

1st Amendment1st Amendment EstablishmentEstablishment ClauseClauseCongress shall make no law Congress shall make no law respecting an respecting an establishment establishment of religionof religion……

Gideon v WainwrightGideon v Wainwright [1963] [1963]:: The Homeless Drifter CaseThe Homeless Drifter Case

Facts of the CaseFacts of the Case::

In 1961 a homeless, drifter named In 1961 a homeless, drifter named ClarenceClarence

Gideon was Gideon was arrestedarrested on charges of on charges of petty petty thefttheft [ [he stole money from a cigarette he stole money from a cigarette machinemachine].].

He was He was indigentindigent [poor][poor] to afford a to afford a lawyer and wanted a free lawyer paid forlawyer and wanted a free lawyer paid forwith tax money.with tax money.

His request was denied so he His request was denied so he defendeddefendedhimselfhimself..

Most accounts say he was smart andMost accounts say he was smart andperformed reasonably well in court for aperformed reasonably well in court for apoorly educated person.poorly educated person.

However, he was not a trained lawyer However, he was not a trained lawyer and and

was was convictedconvicted [found guilty] in Florida [found guilty] in Florida statestate

court and sentenced to 5 years prison.court and sentenced to 5 years prison.

Issues before Supreme Issues before Supreme CourtCourt::

Was Gideon’s conviction in Was Gideon’s conviction in state court valid because he state court valid because he did not have a lawyer to did not have a lawyer to defend him?defend him?

Did Gideon have the right Did Gideon have the right to a lawyer paid for by the to a lawyer paid for by the government? 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].

Furman v GeorgiaFurman v Georgia [1972] [1972]::The Tough on Burglars CaseThe Tough on Burglars Case


A person awoke in the middle of A person awoke in the middle of the night to find William Furman the night to find William Furman robbing his home.robbing his home.

Furman gave two different versions Furman gave two different versions of what happened next during policeof what happened next during policequestioning.questioning.

[A] He told the police he fired[A] He told the police he firedhis weapon “blindly while I ran his weapon “blindly while I ran away.”away.”[B] In court he admitted to tripping[B] In court he admitted to trippingwhile fleeing and the gun went offwhile fleeing and the gun went offaccidentally.accidentally.

He was found guilty of murder He was found guilty of murder because was committing another crimebecause was committing another crimeat the same time [theft].at the same time [theft].

He was sentenced to die by execution.He was sentenced to die by execution.

The case was lumped together with two The case was lumped together with two other similar cases where people other similar cases where people

received received a death sentence for rape. a death sentence for rape.

Issues before Supreme CourtIssues before Supreme Court::

Was the murder conviction and Was the murder conviction and death death

sentence fair because the sentence fair because the “murder” “murder”

may not have been intentional?may not have been intentional?

Was this an excessive punishmentWas this an excessive punishmentand appropriate sentence for the and appropriate sentence for the

type type of crime?of crime?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

Gregg v GeorgiaGregg v Georgia [1976] [1976]::“It’s Not Cruel Case”“It’s Not Cruel Case”


Troy Leon Gregg was found guilty ofTroy Leon Gregg was found guilty of

murdering a hitchhiker in a Georgia murdering a hitchhiker in a Georgia

state court.state court.

He had a long and violent criminal He had a long and violent criminal

record.record.

He was eventually sentenced to death.He was eventually sentenced to death.

He along with 4 other men from He along with 4 other men from differentdifferent

states convicted of similar crimes states convicted of similar crimes

appealed their cases to the Supremeappealed their cases to the Supreme

Court based on the Furman precedent.Court based on the Furman precedent.


Was the decision in the Furman case Was the decision in the Furman case stillstill

valid?valid?

Were these cases different than the Were these cases different than the

Furman case?Furman case?

Was the punishment here cruel andWas the punishment here cruel and

usual?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.

Regents of the University of California v BakkeRegents of the University of California v Bakke:: “The Med School Quota Case”“The Med School Quota Case”


Allan Bakke believed he had been Allan Bakke believed he had been discriminated against, because he was discriminated against, because he was white, after he applied to medical white, after he applied to medical school and was rejected.school and was rejected.

The medical school in California he The medical school in California he applied to had different programs to getapplied to had different programs to getin.in.

One for “disadvantaged” and one forOne for “disadvantaged” and one for““regular” students.regular” students.

After being rejected twice and learningAfter being rejected twice and learningnon-white students with lower scoresnon-white students with lower scoresthan he were admitted he sued.than he were admitted he sued.

California State Courts later ordered Bakke California State Courts later ordered Bakke

admitted because the medical schooladmitted because the medical schoolillegally created illegally created quotas quotas [slots specially [slots specially

setsetaside] for aside] for non-whites which was considerednon-whites which was considereddiscrimination.discrimination.

The Regents of the University of CaliforniaThe Regents of the University of Californiaappealed the decision to the High Court.appealed the decision to the High Court.


Were racial quotas a fair method of Were racial quotas a fair method of preventing racism in college entrance?preventing racism in college entrance?

Were racial quotas preventing Were racial quotas preventing everyoneeveryone

from equal treatment?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.

New Jersey v T.L.O.New Jersey v T.L.O.““The Teen Drug Case”The Teen Drug Case”


Two teenage girls were caught smokingTwo teenage girls were caught smokingin a girls’ school bathroom.in a girls’ school bathroom.

One girl who denied smoking, One girl who denied smoking, TTracy racy LLois ois OOdom had her purse searched by a vice dom had her purse searched by a vice principal.principal.

Marijuana, a pipe, money and plastic bagsMarijuana, a pipe, money and plastic bagswere found in the purse were found in the purse [along with a list [along with a list

of of ““customers”]customers”]..

The girl was suspended, arrested and The girl was suspended, arrested and charged with charged with possession with intent to possession with intent to

sellsell..

She was sentenced to one year probationShe was sentenced to one year probationwhich she appealed.which she appealed.

The case went back and forth in the courtsThe case went back and forth in the courtsand New Jersey appealed the U.S. Court ofand New Jersey appealed the U.S. Court ofAppeals’ decision. Appeals’ decision.

Issues before Supreme Issues before Supreme CourtCourt::

Given the circumstances was the Given the circumstances was the search reasonable?search reasonable?

Did the vice principal have a goodDid the vice principal have a goodReason to search T.L.O.’s purse?Reason to search T.L.O.’s purse?


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.

Tinker v Des Moines Independent School DistrictTinker v Des Moines Independent School District::“The Peace Sign Armband Case”“The Peace Sign Armband Case”


Two Des Moines, Iowa high schoolTwo Des Moines, Iowa high schoolstudents wanted to protest [“speakstudents wanted to protest [“speakout” against] the Vietnam War.out” against] the Vietnam War.

They chose to wear black arm They chose to wear black arm bands to bands to freely expressfreely express their theirdisapproval for dead American disapproval for dead American soldiers.soldiers.

Their school told them to removeTheir school told them to removethe armbands because it was the armbands because it was disruptive.disruptive.

They refused and were suspended.They refused and were suspended.

The case was eventually appealed The case was eventually appealed toto

the High Court.the High Court.


Was the behavior of the Tinkers Was the behavior of the Tinkers disruptive to the school?disruptive to the school?

Were the armbands an acceptableWere the armbands an acceptableand protected from of freeand protected from of freeexpression?expression?

Is expression a form of “speech?”Is expression a form of “speech?”



the behavior was not disruptive.

Non-verbal, peaceful expression in

school is a protected form of speech.

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier:Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier:“The Limited Written School Speech Case”“The Limited Written School Speech Case”


Students working on articles for a Students working on articles for a projectproject

at Hazelwood H.S. in Missouri wanted toat Hazelwood H.S. in Missouri wanted to

publish some articles about “private” publish some articles about “private”

subjects.subjects.

Some of the subjects were teen Some of the subjects were teen

pregnancies and divorced parents.pregnancies and divorced parents.

The writers believed that since the The writers believed that since the namesnames

were changed to fake names it was okay.were changed to fake names it was okay.

The principal did not allow the articles toThe principal did not allow the articles to

be published because the identities werebe published because the identities were

not hidden enough [it was too obvious].not hidden enough [it was too obvious].

The writers sued and were eventuallyThe writers sued and were eventually

granted Certiorari.granted Certiorari.


Did the writers have a right to publishDid the writers have a right to publish

private information in a semi-public private information in a semi-public way way

in school?in school?

Did the principal have a right to stopDid the principal have a right to stop

what he thought was disruptive what he thought was disruptive

behavior?behavior?


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.


Many families in New Hyde Park, New Many families in New Hyde Park, New YorkYork

objected to a school prayer that openedobjected to a school prayer that opened

school each day.school each day.

Even though the prayer was Even though the prayer was not specific not specific toto

any one religionany one religion it mentioned “Almighty it mentioned “Almighty

God.”God.”

Though students were not required to Though students were not required to recite recite

the prayer the prayer everyone heard iteveryone heard it over the over the

intercom.intercom.

Almighty God, we acknowledge our Almighty God, we acknowledge our

dependence upon Thee, and we begdependence upon Thee, and we beg

Thy blessings upon us, our parents,Thy blessings upon us, our parents,

our teachers and our country. our teachers and our country.

AmenAmen. .


Was the prayer a violation of theWas the prayer a violation of the

principle of principle of separation of church and separation of church and statestate??

Can a government school legally exposeCan a government school legally expose

children to a religious prayer?children to a religious prayer?


The opinion of the Court was that since

the school was funded by the government

religious prayers violated the separation

of church and state.

Engel v Vitale: “The Public School Prayer Case”

Miranda v ArizonaMiranda v Arizona::“The Right to Remain Silent Case”“The Right to Remain Silent Case”


In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrestedarrested and charged with and charged with kidnapping and rapekidnapping and rape..

During his initial During his initial interrogation he interrogation he denied denied involvementinvolvement but later but later under the stress of police under the stress of police questioning questioning he finally he finally confessed. confessed.

At his At his interrogationinterrogation Miranda Miranda had had no lawyer presentno lawyer present..

Miranda was found Miranda was found guilty and was guilty and was convictedconvicted of the charges in the of the charges in the state court of Arizona. His state court of Arizona. His conviction was conviction was appealedappealed and and made it all the way to the U.S. made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.Supreme Court.


Was the evidence obtained by police Was the evidence obtained by police valid?valid?

Did the police make Miranda aware of Did the police make Miranda aware of hishis

right to not incriminate himself?right to not incriminate himself?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?

Mapp v OhioMapp v Ohio::“The Porno Pics Case”“The Porno Pics Case”


The home of well known woman who The home of well known woman who dated a bookmaker [illegal bet dated a bookmaker [illegal bet taker] Dollree Mapp’s home was taker] Dollree Mapp’s home was searched by police because of a searched by police because of a bomb threat. bomb threat.

Police Police did notdid not have a warrant [written have a warrant [written permission].permission].

The search uncovered pornography The search uncovered pornography [pictures and magazines] which at [pictures and magazines] which at the time was illegal. Mapp was the time was illegal. Mapp was arrested. arrested.

Based on the evidence found at the Based on the evidence found at the residence she was convicted in Ohio residence she was convicted in Ohio state court and sent to prison.state court and sent to prison.

Her conviction was Her conviction was appealedappealed and made and made it it all the way to the U.S. Supreme all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.Court.


Was the search of Mapp’s house legal? Was the search of Mapp’s house legal?

Can police seize items that are not in Can police seize items that are not in plain viewplain view

and “hold them against you?”and “hold them against you?”

Must you have a specific search Must you have a specific search warrant?warrant?


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.

Bethel School DistrictBethel School District No. 403 v FraserNo. 403 v Fraser::“The Limited Free School Speech Case”“The Limited Free School Speech Case”

Facts of the CaseFacts of the Case::A high school senior gave a speech A high school senior gave a speech

nominatingnominatinga friend for Class President that was filleda friend for Class President that was filledWith suggestive language:With suggestive language:

"I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, "I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most [of] all, his belief in you the students of most [of] all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts - he drives doesn't attack things in spurts - he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally - he hard, pushing and pushing until finally - he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end - even the climax, for each and every one end - even the climax, for each and every one of you. So please vote for Jeff Kuhlman, as of you. So please vote for Jeff Kuhlman, as he'll never come between us and the best our he'll never come between us and the best our school can be." school can be."

He was suspended from school for 2 days.He was suspended from school for 2 days.

His suspension was reversed by the U.S. His suspension was reversed by the U.S. CourtCourt

of Appeals. of Appeals.

The Bethel School District appealed to the The Bethel School District appealed to the High Court to reinstate the suspension.High Court to reinstate the suspension.


Was the school allowed to punish Was the school allowed to punish studentsstudents

for speech considered disruptive?for speech considered disruptive?

Was Fraser within his “rights” to say Was Fraser within his “rights” to say whatwhat

he wanted to say?he wanted to say?


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.

Texas v JohnsonTexas v Johnson::“The Burnt Flag Case”“The Burnt Flag Case”


As a way to protest against President As a way to protest against President Ronald Reagan and his policies GregoryRonald Reagan and his policies GregoryJohnson burned an American flag at the Johnson burned an American flag at the Republican Convention in Dallas, Texas.Republican Convention in Dallas, Texas.

He was eventually sentenced to 1 year in jailHe was eventually sentenced to 1 year in jailand a $2,000 fine by the state of Texas.and a $2,000 fine by the state of Texas.

48 out of 50 states at that time had laws 48 out of 50 states at that time had laws banning abuse to the U.S. flag.banning abuse to the U.S. flag.

His conviction was overturned and upheld by His conviction was overturned and upheld by all courts on appeal. all courts on appeal.

The State of TexasThe State of Texas appealed to the High appealed to the High Court.Court.


Were Johnson’s actions a protected Were Johnson’s actions a protected form of expression even though it form of expression even though it was very unpatriotic and insulting?was very unpatriotic and insulting?

Can states make laws protectingCan states make laws protectingcertain symbols?certain symbols?



although this expression was very offensive

to democracy and its symbol the symbolic

action was an acceptable form of protected

speech.

Image SourcesImage Sources http://www.rashkind.com/Gideon/Gideon_poolroom.jpghttp://www.rashkind.com/Gideon/Gideon_poolroom.jpg http://mysafetynow.com/library/House_burglar_2.gifhttp://mysafetynow.com/library/House_burglar_2.gif http://z.about.com/d/civilliberty/1/0/I/1/-/-/electricchair500.jpghttp://z.about.com/d/civilliberty/1/0/I/1/-/-/electricchair500.jpg www.landmarkcases.org/bakke/drawing.html www.landmarkcases.org/bakke/drawing.html http://www.landmarkcases.org/bakke/images/http://www.landmarkcases.org/bakke/images/

clown_cartoon.gifclown_cartoon.gif http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/tlo.gifhttp://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/tlo.gif http://www.stus.comhttp://www.stus.com

Documents

Civil Rights and Freedoms How due process protections related to the 4 th, 5 th, 6 th and 14 th Amendments effected the outcomes of several landmark US