Supreme+Court+Case+Part+Three

Obscenity – Not Protected by the First Amendment (1957) ● 1st amendment: Free speech and obsccenity ● A NY man named x operated a business that used the mail to invite people to buy materials, considered obscene by postal inspectors. The Court, in its first consideration of obscenity, created the “prevailing community standards” rule, which required a consideration of the work as a whole. In its decision, the Court defined obscene that which offended “the average person, applying contemporary community standards.” (1973) ● 1st amendment: free speech and obscenity ● The Court upheld a stringent application of California obscenity law by Newport Beach, CA, and attempted to define what is obscene. The “x” included three criteria: ○ That the average person would, applying contemporary community standards find that the work appealed to the prurient interest. ○ That the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct defined by State law ○ That “the work” taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. ● The funny thing about this case was it required the Supreme Court Justices to watch porn to evaluate what was obscene

Second Amendment – Right to Bear Arms (1939) ● 2nd amendment deals with state militia & has nothing to do with individual rights & gives states’ the right to regulate guns (dealt with sawed off shotguns) (2008) ● 2nd amendment: right to bear arms ● DC had banned handgun ownership, and required that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. This was challenged as a violation of the 2nd amendment. ● Court ruled with gun owners, and overturned this law as an unconstitutional violation of the right to bear arms.

the states, for it had not been incorporated up to this time. Our book states that it does incorporate the 2nd amendment to the states, while others argue it doesn’t because DC is not a state. Time will tell us more.
 * There is much debate as to weather the case finally incorporated the right to bear arms (2nd amendment) to

Fourth Amendment (Unreasonable Searches and Seizures) (1914) ● 4th amendment and exclusionary rule ● A search without proper warrant was made in San Francisco, & evidence was used by a postal inspector to prosecute Mr. x. x claimed that the evidence was gained by an illegal search, & thus was inadmissible. ● The Court agreed, applying for the first time an “exclusionary rule” for illegally gained evidence in federal courts. The decision stated “… if letters & private documents can thus be seized & used as evidence… his right to be secure against such searches… is of no value, and… might as well be stricken from the Constitution.” 1961) – Selective Incorporation of the 4th Amendment ● Involving the 4th and 14th amendments (illegal evidence and the due process clause) ● Prior to this court case it was permitted by some state constitutions to use illegally obtained evidence in court ● Set precedent for exclusionary rule – protection to citizens in state courts where illegally obtained materials could not be presented in court (1967) ● 4th amendment and wiretapping ● This challenge to the Olmstead ruling of 1928 asked whether evidence gained by illegal wiretaps was admissible ● The court overturned Olmstead, noting that “persons, not property, are protected against illegal searches…” The decision required police to obtain search warrants for wiretaps or electronic surveillance devices (1984) ● 4th amendment and good faith exclusion ● Should evidence gained by a search on an improper search warrant be excluded if the police officer operated in “good faith” that he had a proper warrant? ● The Court upheld in the conviction, noting that “… it was the judge, not the policeman who made the critical mistake.” A technical error in a warrant would no longer cause evidence to be excluded if the officer had proceeded according to the regulations. (1984) ● 4th amendment and inevitability ● Should the evidence gained by an illegal interrogation be excluded if the evidence would have been found “inevitably” within hours of a confession? ● The Court permitted the evidence to be used. “Evidence otherwise excluded may be discovered anyway,” the majority wrote. This case and the Sheppard decision weakened the exclusionary rule on evidence gained by illegal searches. (1985) ● 4th amendment and students ● The court set a new standard for searches in schools in this case, sating that the school had a “legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place,” and that to do this “requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject…” ● The Court thus created a “reasonable suspicion” rule for school searches, a change from the “probable cause” requirement in the wider society. In loco parentis (1988) ● 4th amendment and garbage cans ● Could evidence gained from the garbage can outside someone’s home be admitted as evidence if it was obtained without a search warrant? ● The Court upheld the search and the admission of evidence gained, reasoning that since garbage bags left in the street are accessible to “criminals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public,” the police, too, are entitled to this access. Vernonia School District 47J v (1995) ● 4th amendment and drug testing for student athletes ● The Court ruled that the school district’s drug testing policy was reasonable and therefore constitutional.

5th Amendment – Criminal Procedings (no self incrimination) 6th Amendment – Rights of the Accused (1963) ● 6th and 14th amendment ● Precedent: guarantee of counsel (attorney) for all person facing a felony charge in federal and state trials (1964) ● 5th amendment ● A murder suspect in Chicago was not afforded council while under interrogation ● The Court extended the “exclusionary rule” to illegal confessions in the State court proceedings. ● Carefully, defining an x rule, the Court said, “where the suspect has been taken into custody… the suspect has requested… his lawyer, and the police have not warned him of his right to remain silent, the accused has been denied counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment” (1966) ● 5, 6, and 14th and amendments ● Precedent – x rights “have a right to remain silent, that anything said can be used in Court, right to attorney, if he can’t afford one, one will be appointed for him,” etc. (1967) ● Prior to the case, proceedings against juvenile offenders were generally handled as “family law,” not “criminal law” & provided few due process guarantees. ● xwas assigned to 6 years in state juvenile detention facility for an alleged obscene phone call. He was not provided council & not permitted to confront or cross-examine the principal witness. ● The Court overturned the juvenile proceedings & required that States provide juveniles “some of the due process guarantees of adults,” including the right to a phone call, to counsel, to cross-examine, to confront their accuser, & to be advised of their right to silence. I (1975) ● 5th amendment and students ● Were students entitled to certain rights of due process when facing disciplinary action in school? ● The Court ruled that students had rights to notification of charges, explanation of evidence against them, and the opportunity to present their side of the story. v Fulminante (1991) ● 5th amendment and coerced confessions ● When is a confession of guilt by an accused person considered to be acceptable evidence in a trial? The matter for the Supreme Court to judge was whether in fact Fulminante’s confessions were coerced, depriving Fulminante of his constitutional rights? ● The Court wrote: “the x Supreme Court ruled in this case that respondent Oreste Fulminante’s confession, received in evidence at his trial for murder had been coerced and that its use against him was barred by the 5th and 14th amendment to the US Constitution…. We affirm the judgment of the x court, although for different reasons than those on which the court relied.

Rights of the Accused, Enemy Combatants, Habeas Corpus (2004) ● 6th amendment and speedy trials, 5th and 14th amendment and due process ● Should US enemy combatants be entitled to speedy trial and due process ● US citizens held as enemy combatants have fundamental rights to take his or her case to court with due process of law

(2004) ● Foreign nationals held at Guantanamo bay have right to access US Courts (2006) ● Geneva Conventions apply to enemy combatants Boumediene v (2008) ● Detainees at Guantanamo Bay not barred from seeking habeas corpus

7th Amendment – Civil Law Proceedings (Right to a jury in all civil cases over $20) 8th Amendment – Bail and Cruel an Unusual Punishment (1972) ● Struck down the death penalty as it was currently applied in State criminal codes. ● The Supreme Court ruled that the sentence of death, itself, was not unconstitutional, but the procedures and applications as practiced by the States were. (1976) ● The Court upheld the Georgia death sentence, finding that it did NOT violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the 8th amendment. The Court stated for the first time “punishment of death does NOT invariable violate the Constitution” (2005) ● The Court struck down a former precedent allowing the death penalty to apply to 16-18 (Thompson Oklahoma (1988) ● The Court stated for the first time that execution of those under 18 violated the 8th amendment Payne v Tennessee (1991) ● 8th amendment ● Considering victim impact in sentencing procedures ● Victim impact can be considered Atkins v Virginia (2002) ● 8th amendment ● Executing the mentally retarded was ruled unconstitutional in violation of the right to no cruel and unusual punishment
 * Baldus Study: If an African American man kills a white man, he has a 3x chance for receiving the death penalty than a white man who kills an African American man – many see it as racist and therefore a violation of due process. That is why many states are putting it on hold.

9th and 10th amendments – Rights reserved for the people and the States Griswold v Connecticut (1965) ● 9th amendment ● A law forbade the use of “any drugs, medicinal article, or instrument, for the purpose of preventing contraception.” x, director of Planned Parenthood in New Haven, was arrested for counseling married persons & after conviction, appealed. ● The Court overturned the law, saying that “various guarantees create zones of privacy…” and questioning “…would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms?” The decision is significant for raising for more careful inspections the concept of “enumerated rights” in the 9th amendment. Roe v Wade (1973) ● 9th amendment (right to privacy) & the 14th amendment ● Precedent – “women have a fundamental right to privacy and a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy within the first trimester” ● Reasonable for state to make restrictions in 2nd trimester ● Only with serious risk to woman’s life in 3rd trimester Webster v Reproductive Health Services (1989) ● 9th amendment ● Could a State (Missouri) limit the use of public funds and facilities for abortions in cases where the mother’s life was not in danger? ● A majority of the sharply divided Court found that Missouri’s limit on the use of public funds and facilities for elective abortions was Constitutional Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) ● 9th amendment Upheld the right to an abortion established in Roe ● Created the undue burden test, stating that restrictions that did not place an undue burden on the woman could be upheld by state’s choice. OK Restrictions: parental consent, 24 hour waiting, informed consent; Not OK Restrictions: Husband consent ● Placed viability as the standard for when the life of the fetus should be considered more heavily, not 28 weeks. v Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) ● Right to privacy ● States can require “clear and convincing evidence” for removal of life support Lawrence v Texas (2003) ● Right to privacy ● Court overturned Texas sodomy laws, affirming a constitutional protection of sexual privacy. Stenberg v Carhart (2000) and Gonzalez v Carhart (2007) ● Right to Privacy ● Stenberg case overturned the partial birth abortion ban, but the Gonzalez case reinstated it. ● The “partial-birth” abortion method is banned.

Supreme Court Case Part Four