Period 5/6 Supreme Court Cases
Due by 3:03 Friday, December 19, 2014.
Post by number/title. Others in 5th and 6th period are depending upon you.
A. Context - a couple of sentences
B. Constitutional Application (Article or amendment and be as specific as you can eg. 1st Amendment, freedom of religion, establishment clause) - short sentence
C. What did the Court rule (and why - link A and B) - a couple of sentences
Thanks Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 12:42 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
New Jersey vs TLO: In 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in New Jersey, found "T.L.O." and another girl smoking in a restroom.The two girls were taken to the principal's office where T.L.O.'s friend admitted that she had been smoking in the restroom. T.L.O. denied smoking there. She denied that she smoked at all. An assistant vice-principal demanded to see T.L.O.'s purse. Searching through it he found a pack of cigarettes,rolling papers, a pipe, marijuana, a large wad of dollar bills, and two letters that indicated that T.L.O. was involved in marijuana drug deals at the high school.
T.L.O. was taken to the police station where she confessed that she had sold marijuana at the school. A juvenile court sentenced her to a year's probation. The State Supreme Court overturned the decision, stating that T.L.O.'s 4th Amendment rights had been violated. The State of New Jersey asked that the Supreme Court hear its appeal.
The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of New Jersey. It was more of a reasonable cause than a probable one.. "to maintain school discipline"
14. Gideon vs Wainwright -1963
A. having broken into a poolroom set to enact a misdemeanor offense, Clarence was charged in Florida with a felony but appeared in court without a lawyer. He requested the state to appoint one for him which according to the state's law,an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases. He presented himself and was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
B. The sixth amendment supports the argument that felony defendants have the right to counsel during a trial. he applied for a writ of habeas corpus relief to the state's Supreme court on the ground that his conviction violated his rights under the Federal Constitution. The State Supreme Court denied all relief.
C. In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon, guaranteeing the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in federal and state courts. Following the decision, Gideon was given another trial with an appointed lawyer and was acquitted of the charges.
30. Reno vs. American Civil Liberties Union-1997
Backround: The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the provisions and regulations set by the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protected minors from explicit material on the Internet seen as "indecent" or "patently offensive display".
The supreme court found the provisions of the CDA invalid because it violated the first amendment and a persons right to freedom of speech. The court said that previously they had to limit freedom of speech with such things as radio because they couldn't stop the person from hearing explicits, etc. but with internet the materials "must be actively sought out." The internet could not be government regulated, especially in the age determining area. All nine judges voted for the ACLU.
Hazelwood School District vs Kuhlmeier - 1988
Context: Journalism students at Hazelwood East High School were assigned to write articles for their school newspaper. Two of the articles were about teen pregnancy and divorce in the community. The students changed the names of those involved to protect their anonymity. The principal found the articles to be inappropriate so he deleted them before publication. The students then sued and the US District Court ruled in favor of the school. The students appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth circuit. That court ruled in favor of the students. The school then appealed to the supreme court.
Part of Constitution: First Amendment, Freedom of Speech
What did the court rule: the US Supreme court ruled in favor of the school stating that the school can limit speech if it doesn't match the school's educational goal.
21- Katz vs United States 1967
A) Charles Katz was caught sending illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami using a payphone. The FBI had a listening device planted on the outside of the payphone booth. Katz was convicted because of the recordings gathered by these listening devices. Katz appealed the decision and it went to Supreme Court.
B) This court case questions the interpretation of the fourth amendment right regarding search and seizure. If the Supreme Court upheld the conviction it would weaken the fourth amendments context. If the Supreme Court decided that Katz shouldn't be convicted, the fourth amendment would be strengthened because it would give citizens complete privacy in public phone booths.
C) The court decided to overturn the decision made by the Court of Appeals and sided with Katz. They stated that since the door of the phone booth was closed during the conversation, it was a private conversation and that Katz's privacy was invaded. This ruling strengthened the fourth amendment and altered the fourth amendment warrant requirements which require federal and state governments to have a warrant to search and seize.
19. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. vs. United States (1964)
A. The hotel refused to rent rooms to African American guests, which means that it was in violation of the Civil Rights Act that had just been passed. The owner(s) believed that congress was unjust in forcing the hotel to accommodate black guests because the hotel was a private business. The hotel claimed that it was not going against any legislation and that it was protected via the 5th amendment of the constitution.
B. Involves argument over the 5th amendment (owners believed that they were just in claiming that they were protected through the 5th amendment because the hotel had the right to choose how it wanted to operate) as well as the 13th amendment (hotel claimed that it was being put through "involuntary servitude" to the law if they were forced to open the hotel to guests that were not white).
C. Ruled in favor of the United States - the hotel could not rent to only white guests anymore.
3. California vs Acevedo- 1991
A. Charles Acevedo was seen bringing a bag of unknown substance out of a building known to contain marijuana. He put the bag in his car and drove away, but policemen stopped him and searched his car, having probable cause to perform this search. They found marijuana in the bag, arrested him, and he pleaded guilty. Acevedo then appealed his case, arguing that the police shouldn't have searched his car without a warrant.
B. 4th Amendment- Is the search of a container within a car an unreasonable search and seizure if there is probable cause?
C. The Court ruled 6-3 that "Police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained" (quote from ruling). This ruling was made on the basis that the possession of drugs, whether intentional or not, is a serious enough matter to require the immediate search and seizure by police. A warrant would take too long to obtain, and by the time it is finally obtained the drugs may have already been consumed or sold elsewhere.
21- Katz vs United States 1967
A) Charles Katz was caught sending illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami using a payphone. The FBI had a listening device planted on the outside of the payphone booth. Katz was convicted because of the recordings gathered by these listening devices. Katz appealed the decision and it went to Supreme Court.
B) This court case questions the interpretation of the fourth amendment right regarding search and seizure. If the Supreme Court upheld the conviction it would weaken the fourth amendments context. If the Supreme Court decided that Katz shouldn't be convicted, the fourth amendment would be strengthened because it would give citizens complete privacy in public phone booths.
C) The court decided to overturn the decision made by the Court of Appeals and sided with Katz. They stated that since the door of the phone booth was closed during the conversation, it was a private conversation and that Katz's privacy was invaded. This ruling strengthened the fourth amendment and altered the fourth amendment warrant requirements which require federal and state governments to have a warrant to search and seize.
Post a Comment
<< Home