1 / 21

Searches and Seizures

Searches and Seizures. By: Austin/ Chandler Fann and Steven Dudley. Amendment I.

helia
Télécharger la présentation

Searches and Seizures

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Searches and Seizures By: Austin/ Chandler Fann and Steven Dudley

  2. Amendment I • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  3. Amendment IV • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  4. Amendment XIV • Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  5. Amendment V • No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

  6. Wolf v. Colorado • Facts of Case: • The plaintiff, Julius A. Wolf, was convicted for conspiracy to perform criminal abortions.The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a number of convictions in which evidence was admitted that would have been inadmissible in a prosecution for violation of a federal law in a federal court. • Were the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments? • Argued: • Tuesday, October 19, 1948 • Decided: • Monday, June 27, 1949 • Vinson Court (1946-1949)

  7. Wolf v. Colorado • The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not subject criminal justice in the states to specific limitations and that illegally obtained evidence did not have to be excluded from trials in all cases. The Court reasoned that while the exclusion of evidence may have been an effective way to deter unreasonable searches, other methods could be equally effective and would not fall below the minimal standards assured by the Due Process Clause. Civil remedies, such as "the internal discipline of the police, under the eyes of an alert public opinion," were sufficient. • Decision: 6 votes for Wolf, 3 votes against. • Legal Provision: 14th Amendment

  8. Mapp v. Ohio • Facts of the Case:  • DolreeMapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. • Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?) • Argued:  • Wednesday, March 29, 1961 • Decided:  • Monday, June 19, 1961 • Warren Court (1958-1962)

  9. Mapp v. Ohio • The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule. • Decision: 6 votes for Mapp, 3 vote(s) againstLegal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

  10. Roe v. Wade • Facts of the Case:  • Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. • Question:  • Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? • Argued:  • Monday, December 13, 1971 • Reargued:  • Wednesday, October 11, 1972 • Decided:  • Monday, January 22, 1973 • Issues:  • Privacy, Abortion, Including Contraceptives • Burger Court (1972-1975)

  11. Roe v. Wade • The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling. • Decision: 7 votes for Roe, 2 vote(s) againstLegal provision: Due Process

  12. Dow Chemical Co. v. U.S. • Dow Chemical Company denied the Environmental Protection Agency a follow-up on-site inspection of its facilities in Midland, Michigan. In response, EPA conducted an unannounced aerial inspection. When Dow became aware EPA had taken aerial photographs of its facilities, it filed suit in District Court alleging that EPA conducted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The District Court ruled that the aerial inspection violated Dow's "expectation of privacy" from searches. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the ruling on the ground that Dow only expected pivacy with respect to its indoor property. • Does the Fourth Amendment require government inspectors to obtain warrants before conducting aerial searches of outdoor business facilities? • Argued:  • Tuesday, December 10, 1985 • Decided:  • Monday, May 19, 1986 • Issues:  • Criminal Procedure, Search and Seizure • Burger Court (1981-1986)

  13. Dow Chemical v. U.S. • No. Justice Warren Burger delivered the opinion for a 5-4 court. The Court maintained that the EPA's statutory jurisdiction "carries with it all the modes of inquiry and investigation traditionally employed or useful to execute the authority granted." Fourth Amendment protection involves the invasion of areas where intimate activities occur, whereas "the open areas of an industrial complex are more comparable to an 'open field' in which an individual may not legitimately demand privacy." The fact that EPA could take aerial photographs of the facilities from public airspace with the standard photographic equipment employed by mapmakers confirmed that the area was not subject to strict protection from observation. • Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) againstLegal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

  14. Terry v. Ohio • Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail. • Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment? • Argued: • Tuesday, December 12, 1967 • Decided: • Monday, June 10, 1968 • Issues: • Criminal Procedure, Search and Seizure

  15. Terry v. Ohio • The Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation. • Decision: 1 vote for Terry, 8 against • Legal Provisions: 14th Amendment

  16. Board of Education v. Earls • The Court held that, because the policy reasonably serves the School District's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, it is constitutional. The Court reasoned that the Board of Education's general regulation of extracurricular activities diminished the expectation of privacy among students and that the Board's method of obtaining urine samples and maintaining test results was minimally intrusive on the students' limited privacy interest. "Within the limits of the Fourth Amendment, local school boards must assess the desirability of drug testing schoolchildren. In upholding the constitutionality of the Policy, we express no opinion as to its wisdom. Rather, we hold only that Tecumseh's Policy is a reasonable means of furthering the School District's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren," wrote Justice Thomas. • Decision: 5 votes for Board of Education, 4 vote(s) against • Legal Provisions: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

  17. Board of Education v. Earls • Facts of the Case: • The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy adopted by the Tecumseh, Oklahoma School District (School District) requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity. Two Tecumseh High School students and their parents brought suit, alleging that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment. The District Court granted the School District summary judgment. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the policy violated the Fourth Amendment. The appellate court concluded that before imposing a suspicionless drug-testing program a school must demonstrate some identifiable drug abuse problem among a sufficient number of those tested, such that testing that group will actually redress its drug problem, which the School District had failed to demonstrate. • Is the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy, which requires all students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing, consistent with the Fourth Amendment? • Argued: • Tuesday, March 19, 2002 • Decided: • Thursday, June 27, 2002 • Issues: • Privacy, Miscellaneous • Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

  18. Timeline

  19. Political Cartoon

  20. Political Cartoon

  21. Video!

More Related