Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
© Susan Holtz
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.
The 9/11 Commission Report
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
What do you think about your rights in the Bill of Rights
1.I personally think about them.
2.I take them for granted.
3.I don’t know what they are.
(2010 national survey of high school seniors)
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Civil liberties vs. civil rights
• Civil liberties = basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed
• Protections against the government• Either explicitly written down in the Bill of
Rights or interpreted from years of case law
• Civil rights = basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Important facts about your rights…
• Your rights are relative – not absolute• “Your rights and were someone else’s
nose begins.”• Your rights are more limited in school
• In loco parentis
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Bill of Rights
• Colonists feared a tyrannical government• Federalists agreed to amend the Constitution
to include the Bill of Rights• B of R did not protect the people from state
governments• 1868 14th amendment – interpreted to
impose, provision-by-provision, most of the constitutional protections
LO 4.1
To Learning ObjectivesCopyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Bill of Rights
• Incorporation of the 14th amendment• Gitlow v. New York (1925)• Not all the rights and been applied to state
governments at this time• Second Amendment in 2010• Eighth amendment not fully incorporated• Fifth Amendment not fully incorporated
LO 4.1
To Learning ObjectivesCopyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Freedom of religion
• Establishment clause – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
• Free exercise clause – “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
• Freedom of Religion Court Cases
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Reynolds v. United States (1879)
• George Reynolds was convicted in a District Court for bigamy (having multiple wives).
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• The Court ruled that the First Amendment did not deprive Congress of the power to reach actions which were in violation of social duties subversive of good order.
• Polygamy had long been considered “odious among the northern and western nations of Europe.
• States had reaffirmed laws against plural marriage not long after the adoption of the First Amendment.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
U.S. v. Ballard (1944)
Guy Ballard and his wife asserted that Saint Germaine had chosen him as a “divine messenger.” According to Ballard, to carry out the saint’s wishes, he founded the “I Am” religion in California. As the spiritual leader of I Am, Ballard claimed supernatural healing powers and told his followers that he needed money to continue his work. Ballard used the postal service to collect funds, making a good deal of money along the way.
Asserting the I Am sect was not a religion; the federal government accused Ballard of using the mail to defraud people.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
Justice Douglas had this to say: The religious viewsespoused by Ballard might seem incredible, if notpreposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines aresubject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truthor falsity, then the same can be done with the religiousbeliefs of any sect. When triers of fact undertake that task,they enter a forbidden domain. Under the Ballard approach, the proper test of aconstitutionally protected religious belief is not the truth ofits doctrine but the sincerity with which it is held.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
United States v. Seeger United States v. Seeger (1965)(1965)
Daniel Seeger asserted that, although he opposed participation in the Vietnam War on the basis of religious belief, “he preferred to leave the question as to his belief in a Supreme Being open ‘rather than answer yes or no.’”
Specifically excluded from exemption are “essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or merely a personal code”
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• The test of belief “in relation to a supreme being” is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to the orthodox belief in God.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Alton Lemon brought suit against David Kurtzman, State Superintendent of Schools. Lemon wanted the Trial Court unconstitutional a Pennsylvania law that authorized Kurtzman to “purchase” secular educational services for non-public schools.
Under this law, the Superintendent would use state taxes levied on cigarettes to reimburse non-public schools for expenses incurred for teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials. The state authorized such funding with certain restrictions. It would pay for secular expenses only--that is, secular books and teachers’ salaries for the same courses taught in public schools.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
The Court struck down the policy, creating the Lemon Test.
1. Secular purpose
2. Neither aids or inhibits religion
3. Government and religion are not EXCESSIVELY entangled
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
• Yoder was a member of the Amish religion and the father of two children, ages 14 and 15. He was convicted of violating Wisconsin’s mandatory school attendance law by declining to send his children to public or private school through the age of 16.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• The Court held Yoder’s conviction invalid under the First Amendment. Justice Burger was careful in noting the outcome of the case relied heavily upon the facts, referencing the sincerity of Yoder’s religious beliefs, and the long-standing of the Amish faith.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
• Louisiana enacted the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act in 1981. This law prohibited schools from teaching evolution principles unless theories of creationism also were taught. The state argues that evolutionary theory is a religious tenet. If evolution is taught so should creationism, which has its origin in a literal reading of Genesis.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• The Court found that the law lacked a secular purpose; rather its purpose was to “endorse a particular religious view.”
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)
• For more than forty years, the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island erected a display in a park owned by a nonprofit organization. The display included a Santa Clause house, reindeer, a Christmas tree, a clown, colored lights, a Season’s Greetings banner, and a manger with the Christ Child, Mary and Joseph, angels, animals, and so forth. The city spent $1,365 to set up and take down the display each year.
• The ACLU brought suit against the city, believing the annual expenditures to violate the Establishment Clause.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
• The court found it was not a “impermissible” breach of the Establishment Clause.
• Justice Brennan wrote “an unbroken history of official acknowledgement by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life: executive orders proclaiming Christmas and Thanksgiving as national holidays, ‘In God We Trust’ on currency, etc.”
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Goldman v. Weinberger (1986)
S. Simcha Goldman was an Orthodox Jew, an ordained rabbi, and a Captain in the Air Force. He was stationed at March Air Force Base in Riverside, California, as a clinical psychologist in the base hospital. From the time Goldman began his service at the base, he wore a yarmulke while in and out of uniform. Goldman did so because his religion requires its’ male adherents to keep their head covered at all times.
After a superior told him that the yarmulke violated Air Force dress code, Goldman brought suit against the Secretary of Defense. Goldman argued that the regulation violated his First Amendment exercise rights.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• Writing for the majority, Justice Rehnquist agreed with the government and ruled against Goldman. He wrote “The military is by necessity a specialized society separate from civilian society. The military must insist upon respect for duty and discipline.”
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Bowen v. Roy (1986)
The plaintiffs were Native American parents who had applied for financial assistance under a U.S. government welfare program. One of the requirements to receive benefits under this program was that the applicants provide Social Security Number for their children and themselves. The plaintiffs refused to do so, as they claimed this would violate their religious beliefs; their belief was that using a technologically-derived number to identify her would diminish her spiritual uniqueness.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• The Supreme Court ruled that, the government's use of a Social Security number for the child did not impair her family's freedom to "believe, express and exercise" their religion, the plaintiffs' claim was without merit.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Oregon v. Smith (1990)
• The disputed issue in Smith arose when two members of the Native American church, Alfred Smith and Galen Black, were fired from their jobs for ingesting peyote at a religious ceremony. Smith and Black applied for unemployment benefits but were turned down by the state, which found them ineligible because they were fired for “misconduct”; under state law, workers discharged for that reason could not obtain benefits.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• The Court held that the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve an individual from the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law commands behavior inconsistent with a person’s religious beliefs.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Lee v. Weisman (1992)
• A public school principal in Providence, Rhode Island, invited a rabbi to deliver prayer at a middle school graduation. According to the school district the prayer was voluntary and nonsectarian .
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• The action of the principal in inviting a member of the clergy to deliver a prayer at graduation constituted state promotion of religion.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Zobrest v. Catilina Foothills School District (1993)
The parents of James Zobrest, a deaf student, applied to a public school district for an interpreter to accompany their son to classes at a Roman Catholic high school.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• The provision of an interpreter to be a benefit neutrally applied whether parents sent their children to public or private schools.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Church of Santeria v. City of Hialeah (1993)• Petitioner church and its congregants practice the
Santeria religion, which employs animal sacrifice as one of its principal forms of devotion. The animals are killed by cutting their carotid arteries and are cooked and eaten following all Santeria rituals except healing and death rites. After one such ritual members of the church were arrested and charged with cruelty to animals.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• Law was too specifically tailored to target the Church of Santeria.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Santa Fe School District v. Doe (2000)
• Two sets of students and parents brought suit against the Santa Fe School District’s policy to have a student led, student initiated prayer over the public address system.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• One of the purposes of the prayer was to solemize the event, suggesting that the school was endorsing religion.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
In the 1990s, the Cleveland City School District faced a crisis. The district served some 75,000 children, most of them from low income, minority families. Evaluation studies found it to be one of the worst performing school districts in the nation. In order to improve performance, the state enacted its’ Pilot Project Scholarship Program. The program allowed parents to choose among the following alternatives:
1. To continue in Cleveland public schools as before;2. To receive a scholarship up to $2,250 per year to attend an accredited, private, nonreligious school;3. To receive a scholarship up to $2,250 per year to attend an accredited, private, religious school;4. To remain in the Cleveland public schools and receive up to $500 in tutorial assistance; or5. To attend a public school outside the district. Other public school districts accepting Cleveland students would receive $2,250 from the Cleveland district as well as normal state funding for each student enrolled
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• The Court found that the Cleveland Pilot Program does not offend the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Rehnquist wrote “There’s no dispute that the Program challenged here was enacted for the valid, secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children. Thus, the question presented is whether the Ohio program has the ‘forbidden effect’ of advancing or inhibiting religion.”
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005)
• Two Kentucky counties exhibited the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. After, challenges, they subsequently twice posted two new displays in which the Ten Commandments were displayed along with other documents.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• A cited secular purpose has to be genuine, not a sham, and not secondary to a religious objective.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
• Are these activities allowed are the establishment clause?
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
What about the Pledge of Allegiance?
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
What about “under God” in the pledge?
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Establishment clause
• Aid to church-related schools – in general aid is prohibited • three-part lemon test is applied• Interpretation of the lemon test has varied
over the years• In recent years the court has permitted a
they goes to all schools• School vouchers – court has allowed it
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Establishment clause
• Engel v. Vitale – officially sponsored prayer in schools violates the establishment clause
• A moment of silence is permitted as long as it is secular
• Cannot use a schools public address system to prayer sporting events
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Establishment clause
• Supreme Court has split on the display of the Ten Commandments
• Has allowed it as part of a larger display• Prohibited as an overly religious display
in a Kentucky courthouse
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Establishment clause
• No state can ban the teaching of evolution or require the teaching of creationism
• Some schools teach the theory of “intelligent design” but the court has not ruled on this yet
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Establishment clause
• Public schools and colleges cannot place restrictions on religious organizations that are not also placed on nonreligious ones.
• Rosenberger v. University of Virginia
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
So what is okay under the establishment clause?
• Study of religion in a secular way• Public displays of religious symbols that
include all religions, non-religious symbols like a Christmas tree, historical displays
• Private schools can do as they please as long as they do not take public funds
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Free exercise clause
• You can believe what you want• You cannot always do what you want• Cannot act in a way that endangers
public health or safety
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Free exercise clause
• The Religious Freedom Restoration Act , passed in 1993 required all levels of government to “accommodate religious conduct” unless there was a compelling reason to do otherwise
• The Supreme Court ruled the act unconstitutional
• Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 schools can be denied federal funds if they ban constitutionally acceptable expressions of religion
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Freedom of expression
• First amendment protects most speech, but some speech either falls outside the protection of the 1st amendment or has limited protection
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Schenck v. US (1919)
• To encourage support of WWI Congress passed the Espionage Act.
• Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party, sent out leaflets to men who had been drafted during WWI. He was arrested for violating the Act.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• Clear and present danger test
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
• Sullivan, a county commissioner of Montgomery County, Alabama, brought a civil suit for libel against the New York Times for a full page advertisement in the newspaper.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• Higher standard for public officials.• Actual malice
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Tinker v. Des Moines
• Three students in Des Moines, Iowa, were involved in planning a protest against U.S. involvement in Vietnam. They chose to wear black armbands to indicate their support for a truth.
• They were suspended for their protest.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The court’s decision
• Symbolic speech is protected.
• No disruption to school
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
New York Times v. U.S. (1971)
• The U.S. went to District Court to enjoin publications of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times and the Washington Post. Daniel Ellsberg, a Pentagon employee who had grown disaffected with the war in Vietnam, had turned those documents, which detailed the history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, over to newspapers.
• The Supreme Court decided to hear the case.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• The Court ruled that the judiciary cannot prevent the publication. “The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the freedom of press, speech, religion, and assembly…Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunction, or prior restraint…
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Buckley v. Veleo (1976)
• Congress passed in 1971, and in 1974 amended, the Federal Election Campaign Act. This act broadly attempted to limit individual political contributions to $1,000 to any single candidate with an overall annual limitation of $35,000 by any single contributor. It further required reporting and disclosure of contributions and expenditures above certain threshold levels, established a system of public funding of presidential campaigns, and created a Federal Election Commission.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• Limitations on campaign restrictions are constitutional.
• Limitations on a candidates spending on his own campaign is unconstitutional.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)• In May of 1983 the principal of Hazelwood East High
ordered the deletion of two pages from Spectrum, a student newspaper. The two pages included an article on students’ experiences with pregnancy and another story discussing the impact of divorce on students at the school.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• The First Amendment rights of students in public schools are not the same as the rights of students in other settings.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
• After he publicly burned a U.S. flag at a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, the state sentenced Johnson to jail and fined him under a Texas law prohibiting the desecration of a venerated object.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• “expressive conduct”
• Symbolic speech is protected
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Morse v. Frederick (2007)
• “BONG HITS FOR JESUS”
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s deicision
• Have First Amendment rights in school but they are not the same as adults.
• School authorities have to right to limit speech that could be harmful to students.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)• The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
prohibited corporations and unions from making independent expenditures for electioneering communications within thirty days of a primary election. Citizens United challenged the law after becoming concerned that a negative documentary on Hillary Clinton, which it hoped to air on cable television, would be illegal. The case was re-argued after the court specifically asked parties to address whether it should overrule precedents.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Freedom of expression
• No prior restraint – if a publication violates a law
• Symbolic speech – flag burning• Commercial speech – restrictions must
meet a substantial government interest
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Freedom of expression
• Permitted restrictions • Periods of perceived foreign threats • Clear and Present Danger – speech that
causes harm to the public.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Freedom of expression
• Modifications to the Clear and Present Danger Test• Bad tendency rule - allows govt. to infringe
upon speech as long as it is inciting an illegal action
• Grave and probable danger test• Incitement test – danger must be
immediate
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Unprotected speech: Obscenity • Definitional Problems: current def. from
1973• “I know it when I see it” ~ Justice Stewart
1. Average person finds it violates community standards
2. The work appeals to a prurient interest in sex
3. The work shows patently offensive sexual conduct
4. The work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Obscenity
• Protecting children• Porn on the internet – Congress has
made many attempts to shield minors from pornography, most have been found unconstitutional
• Grants to local schools and libraries
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Obscenity
• Should “virtual” pornography be banned?
• Computer-generated images• Right now they are not
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Unprotected speech: slander
• Slander – statements that are false and harm the reputation of another
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Other forms of unprotected speech
• Campus speech • Student fees can be used to fund groups
you do not agree with • Campus speech and behavior codes
• Hate speech on the internet – US one of the few countries that does not restrict
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Freedom of the press
• Libel – a written defamation of character. • Actual malice – done knowingly or with
reckless disregard for the truth • Public figures must meet a higher standard of
proof than ordinary people. • Free press v. fair trial = gag order • Films, radio, and TV – broadcast radio and
TV are not afforded the same protections
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Right to Privacy
• Abortion • Major right-to-privacy issue
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
• This case involved the constitutionality of Connecticut’s birth control law. The statute provided that “any person who uses any drug, medical article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception” was to be subject to a fine, imprisonment, or both. The statute further specified that a person who assisted another in committing any offense could be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender. Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, was convicted of being an accessory.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• Right to privacy• Stemming from
• First Amendment • Third Amendment • Fourth Amendment • Ninth Amendment – certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
• Fourteenth Amendment
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Roe v. Wade (1973)
• Jane Roe (a pseudonym) was an unmarried pregnant woman who brought suit against District Attorney Wade of Dallas County, Texas. Roe’s suit challenged a Texas statute prohibiting abortions except when, in a doctor’s judgment, abortion would be necessary to save the life of the mother.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• Reaffirmed the right to privacy • Fetus not protected by the 14th
Amendment until after the first trimester.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
LO 4.7
To Learning ObjectivesCopyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
• Responding to a report of a weapons disturbance, Houston police legally entered Lawrence’s apartment and discovered he and another man engaged in an intimate sexual act. Both were arrested and convicted under Texas law defining sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex as deviate.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The Court’s decision
• Kennedy wrote that liberty is designed to protect individuals against undue government intrusion. Such liberty has been related to privacy interests going back to 1923 in Meyer v. Nebraska.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)
• Congressional law prohibiting “partial birth abortion”
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Privacy rights and the “right to die”
• Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1997)
• A patient’s life support could be withdrawn at the request of a family member if there is “clear and convincing evidence” that a patient did not want the treatment
• Living wills
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
“Right to die”
• What if there is no living will?• The spouse decides
• Terri Schiavo
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Physician-assisted suicide
• Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not include the right to commit suicide
• Decision has left much leeway • Oregon and Washington both have very
narrowly tailored laws.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Privacy rights vs. security
• USA Patriot Act – eased restrictions on investigating, surveillance, and detention of terrorist suspects.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
USA Patriot Act
1. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by third
parties.2. It expands the government's ability to search private
property without notice to the owner.
3. the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause
4. Allows the FBI to wiretap and follow electronic communications.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
USA Patriot Act
• Civil liberty concerns – some fear the expanded powers of investigation might be used to silence government critics or to threaten individuals and groups who oppose government policies
• Many of the provisions of the act were renewed in May of 2011
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
USA Patriot Act
• The War on Terrorism – Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) provided detainees the right to challenge their detention before a judge and Boumediene v. Bush (2008) provided foreign terrorism suspects the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.
LO 4.6
To Learning Objectives
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Rights of the accused vs. the rights of society • The great balancing
act!• Some believe the
rights of the accused are protected more than the rights of society and of victims
• Err on the side of caution
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Copyright © 2009 Cengage Learning 107
Rights of the Accused
• Fourth Amendment• No unreasonable or unwarranted search or
seizure• No arrest except on probable cause
• Fifth Amendment• No coerced confessions• No compulsory self-incrimination
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Copyright © 2009 Cengage Learning 108
Rights of the Accused (cont.)
• Sixth Amendment• Legal counsel• Informed of charges• Speedy and public jury trial• Impartial jury by one’s peers
• Eighth Amendment• Reasonable bail• No cruel or unusual punishment
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Defendants’ Rights
• Interpreting Defendants’ Rights• Criminal Justice personnel are limited by
the Bill of Rights • Courts continually rule on what is
constitutional and what is not.
LO 4.6
To Learning Objectives
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Court Cases
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Criminal Law
• Arrest • Arrest warrant• No warrant – must have probable cause• May be based on much less evidence than is
necessary to prove a person is guilty at trial• Has to be more than suspicion to arrest
• Suspicion is okay to search but not to arrest
• Police can use as much force as reasonably necessary to make an arrest
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
• What to do if arrested• Don’t struggle or argue
• If you believe there has been a mistake – resisting arrest and assaulting an officer are separate crimes you can be charged with
• Otherwise, keep quiet until you’ve spoken to a lawyer• Don’t discuss your case with anyone and don’t sign a
statement• You may be searched, photographed, and fingerprinted• Your property may be taken ask for a receipt • As soon as possible call a family member or friend
• Tell them where you are, what you’ve been charged with, and what your bail or bond is
Criminal Law
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Criminal Law: Procedure
• Fourth amendment• The law of search and seizure• Katz v. US
• A search is any governmental intrusion into something in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy
• Protects houses, yards, garages, apartments, diaries, briefcases
• Generally the police need a search warrant except in some situations
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Criminal Law: Procedure
• Fourth amendment exceptions• Plain view• Stop and frisk – only requires “suspicion”• Consent• Hot pursuit• Emergency situations – bomb threat, smelling smoke, hearing
screams• Searches incident to lawful arrest• Boarder and airport searches• Vehicle exception – POLICE CAN SEARCH YOUR CAR OR
THE CAR YOU ARE DRIVING • Once and individual is arrested it is up to the court to decide if
the evidence was obtained illegally• Exclusionary rule – evidence obtained illegally cannot be
used at trial
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Criminal Law: Procedure
• Saying no to the police• Make sure you say NO clearly – sometimes cops
will ask questions in deliberately confusing ways to get you to consent• Remain calm and do nothing to enrage the officer• Any animating behavior could be used as probable cause
that you are hiding something
• What about a raided party?• Police can pat you down for weapons, but you do not need
to empty your pockets• Remember, remain calm and comply if it looks like things
will get out-of-control if you don’t • You can always challenge the search later in court!
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Criminal Law: Procedure
• Unable to see over Michelle’s 10-foot-high fence, police hire a plane and fly over the house at 1,000 feet and see marijuana plants growing in the backyard.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Criminal Law: Criminal Procedure
• A boarder patrol agent boards a bus in Texas. As she walks down the aisle, she squeezes the luggage that passengers have stored above their seats. When she squeezes Sydnie’s bag, she feels a suspicious “brick-like” object, which she believes to be a “brick” of methamphetamine.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Criminal Law: Procedure
• Todd is stopped at a DUI checkpoint and questioned. While questioning him a police officer notices a bullet on the front seat. The officer takes Todd’s keys and searches the rest of the car and finds nothing. He then opens Todd’s trunk, where he finds several brown paper bags filled with white powder. Todd is arrested and later at the station the car is searched again. The police then find $3,200 in cash.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Criminal Law: Procedure
• Suspecting Dani of growing marijuana in her house, federal agents scanned the house with a thermal imager to see whether it was emitting abnormal amounts of heat consistent with lamps used for growing marijuana.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Criminal Law: Procedure
• Police stop Chase for a traffic violation. During the stop, an officer walks a drug sniffing dog around the car, and the dog “alerts” the officer to drugs in the trunk.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Criminal Law: Procedure
• Ali is mad at her roommate Tiffini. She went to the police and offered to show them where Tiffini was hiding stolen CD’s they used for their dance group “Suburban Flavor.” The police accompany Idyghia to a garage they both shared and discovered 50 stoled CD’s.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Criminal Law: Procedure
• Nolan posts “No Trespassing” signs around his land and locks the gate to his property. Police go onto a highly secluded part of his land about a mile from his house and find marijuana.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
• Investigating a shooting, police legally enter an apartment looking for weapons and the shooter. While inside, an officer spots a high-priced stereo that seems out of place in the rundown apartment. The officer picks it up, jots down the serial number, puts it down, calls headquarters, and finds out the stereo is stolen .
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Criminal Law: Criminal Procedure
• The FBI listens to Clay’s conversation by attaching an electronic eavesdropping device to the outside of the public telephone booth he uses everyday at 11:00 am.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
• Police install a device at the phone company office that keeps track of the numbers that Victoria dials from her home phone.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
• Suspecting drug dealing, police have the trash collector turn over Kyle’s trash to them instead of throwing it in the trash truck.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The death penalty
• “cruel and unusual punishment”• 1970’s many states death penalty policies were found
unconstitutional – inconsistent and arbitrary • Today 38 states and the federal government allow the
death penalty • 1994=80% favored • 2010= polls indicate between 50% and 60% • Since 1973 over one hundred people found to be
wrongfully convicted
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Copyright © 2009 Cengage Learning 128
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The death penalty
• 3 drug cocktail supposedly causes extreme pain
• Court has upheld its continued use in 2008
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
The death penalty
• 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
• Limits appeals from death row convicts • Shortened the time average time period on
death row from 10-12 years to 6-8 years• Many are concerned that the shortened
appeals process increases the possibility that innocent persons will be put to death
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Court cases
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Right to bare arms
• Many communities have passed restrictions on owning and carrying handguns.• Laws have mandated background checks
for gun buyers and limited the sale of certain types of weapons altogether.
• Laws have required that guns be stored in a fashion to prevent their theft or children from accessing and firing them.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Court cases
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Right to Bear Arms
• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)• Right to possess a firearm for self-defense
within the home.• Requiring firearm in a home to be
disassembled or bound by trigger lock is unconstitutional.
• McDonald v. Chicago (2010)• Extended 2nd Amendment’s limits on
restricting right to bear arms to state and local laws.
LO 4.5
To Learning Objectives