civil liberties: protecting individual rights reference chapter 20
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
![Page 2: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Civil Liberties: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual RightsProtecting Individual Rights
Reference Chapter 20
![Page 3: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
• Due Process
• Freedom and Security of the Person
• Rights of the Accused
• Punishment
![Page 4: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Due Process
• essentially, the government must act fairly and lawfully
• Court has determined its meaning case by case.
• 14th Amendment means that due process guarantees must apply to statestate, locallocal governments and any administrativeany administrative action
![Page 5: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Due ProcessDue Process
• procedural– how the government
acts
• Rochin v. California 1952
• substantive– the laws must be fair
• Pierce v. Society of Sisters 1925
![Page 6: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
10th Amendment reserves this power to the states
• Police Power:– to protect and promote
• public health• public safety• morals• general welfare
limits on alcohol, tobaccopollution lawsvaccinations
concealed weaponsseat belt lawsDUIs
gamblingpornographyprostitution
compulsory educationMedicaidPUC regulation
Police Power cannot violate Due process Clause of 5th/14th amendment
![Page 7: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Right to Privacy
• Stanley v.Georgia 1969 —the right to be let alone
• Griswold v. Connecticut 1965 – can’t prohibit birth control counseling and the use of contraceptives
![Page 8: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Right to Privacy
• Roe v. Wade 1973 – abortion
• 1st – no restriction• 2nd – reasonable regulations• 3rd – can prohibit all but medically necessary
• Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992 – • women must receive counseling to persuade her against abortion• must wait at least 24 hours after counseling• unmarried minor must have parental or judicial consent• doctors and clinics must keep detailed records.
– does not place “ a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion…”
![Page 9: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
![Page 11: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Freedom of Security –Home and Person
• 4th Amendment – Warrants and Probable Cause– no general right to search or seize without a warrant
• exceptions– “plain view”
– “informational roadblocks and DUIs”
– after a person is arrested
– “common sense” grounds—suspect flight
– public place arrests with probable cause
![Page 12: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
4th Amendment – Warrants and Probable Cause
• Automobiles– “moveable scene of the crime”– California v. Acevedo 1991
• When it’s a lawful stop AND the police have probable cause, police do not need a warrant to search anything in the car.
![Page 13: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
4th Amendment – Warrants and Probable Cause
• Exclusionary Rule– Can’t be convicted with illegally acquired
evidence Mapp v. Ohio 1961– Exceptions
• “inevitable discovery”• “good faith”• “honest mistakes”
![Page 14: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
4th Amendment – Warrants and Probable Cause
• Drug-testing– employment– sports/extracurricular activity
• Wiretapping– with a warrant– Katz v. United States 1967 (phone booth)
• entitled to private conversation
– NSA electronic surveillance program
![Page 15: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Rights of the Accused
• Writs of Habeas Corpus
• No bills of attainder, ex post facto laws
• Federal Grand Jury for serious crimes
• No double jeopardy
![Page 18: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Rights of the Accused
• Speedy and Public Trial– but not too speedy or too public
• 45 minute murder trial w/hostile audience• tv in the courtroom
![Page 19: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Rights of the Accused
• Trial by Jury– defendant may ask for a “change of venue”– defendant may decline-bench trial– juries may vary in size (6-12)
• may not require a unanimous decision
– no one may be excluded from jury duty based on gender, race, color, national origin or religion
![Page 20: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Rights of the Accused
• Right to Counsel/No self-incrimination– Escobedo v. Illinois 1964– Gideon v. Wainwright 1963– Miranda v. Arizona 1966
![Page 21: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Escobedo v. Illinois 1964
SC overturns
![Page 22: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
![Page 23: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Miranda v. Arizona
![Page 24: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
![Page 25: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Punishment
• Bail– no automatic entitlement to bail– justification for bail
• shouldn’t be jailed until proven guilty• better able to prepare for trial
– can’t be set at what is higher than what will reasonable assure that the defendant will appear. Stack v. Boyle 1951
![Page 26: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
• Preventive Detention– 1984 Congressional action
• judge can order “preventive detention” for someone who might commit another serious crime before trial.
• Supreme Court upheld the decision in 1987
![Page 27: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
• Yes– burning @ stake– crucifixion– drawing & quartering– excessive force– deprivation– denationalization
Such punishment as would amount to torture or barbarity, any cruel and degrading punishment not known to the Common Law, or any fine, penalty, confinement, or treatment that is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community.
• No– firing squad– electrocution
• twice– lethal injection– hanging
– 3 Strikes Laws
![Page 28: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Capital Punishment—Death Penalty
• 1972 – Court struck down state death penalties because they were capriciously and/or randomly applied.
• State response– Mandatory sentence –unconstitutional– 2-step procedure to apply the death sentence
• trial conviction• sentencing trial
![Page 29: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Capital Punishment—Death Penalty
• 2-stage laws are OK– crime must result in death of victim– can’t be applied to the mentally challenged– can’t be applied to those under 18 at the time
of the crime– must be decided by the jury that convicted– defendant can’t be manacled at dp hearing
![Page 30: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649e7a5503460f94b7af1e/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
p. 523 in text