12/11 Notes: 4th Period

I'll start off by saying that there might be spelling errors. I can't read my handwriting when I take these notes this fast....haha.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeir (1988)
-The Court upheld a high school principal's decision to delete articles on divorce and teenage pregnancy from the school's newspaper.
-The Court said that educator's may limit speech within the confines of the school curriculum and speech might be distracting.

Right to assemble peacefully
-The right to assemble peacefully is equated with the right to free speech and free press. government cannot prohibit peaceful political meetings and cannot brand as criminals those who organize, lead, and attend such meetings.

Right to bear arms
-2nd amendment has created problems for gun owners and gun control advocats. Courts have upheld restrictions on gun ownership such as registration and licensing.
-Outright prohibition of gun ownership would not likely be upheld by the Courts.

14th Amendment due procession clause
-The due process clause of the 14th Amendment is the linchpin that holds the states to the provisions of the Bill of the Rights.
-No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privledges of citizens of the US nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
-Because of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process Clause. Most freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights function as limitations on the states today.

Fundamental Freedoms

Palko v. Conneticut (1937)
-Found that only certain provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Fundamental Freedoms were absorbed into the due process clause and made applicable to the States.
-As a result, Palko died in Conneticut's gas chamber.
-Next 30 years saw slow but perceptible change in the standard for determining whether a Bill of Rights guarantee was fundamental.
-By 1969, when Palko was finally over-turned, the Court had found most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States.

Criminal Procedures: The meaning Constitutional Guarantees.

-Safeguards embodied in the 4th through 8th amendments specify how government must behave in criminal procedings.

-Right to a jury trial is guaranteed by the 6th amendment. In Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), the Supreme Court made this obligatory for the States. But, the Court left it to the States to decide:
-How many jurors where required
-What it takes to reach a verdict

Right to an attorney is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. In Gidieon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court made this obligatory for the States.

-The right not to incriminate oneself is guaranteed by 5th Amendment. In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court made it obligatory for the States to inform an accused of the full measure of their Constitutional rights before interrogating them. If a person is only custody without questioning or subject to questioning without arrest, the Court does not recquire warnings.

The right to be secure against unresonable searches is contained in the 4th Amendment, Wolf v. Colorado (1949) the Court made this obligatory on the States. But the Court did not specify how to handle the evidence gathered in an illegal search.

Federal Courts have followed the exclusionary rule in search and seizure case. The exclusionary rule holds that evidence obtained obtained from an illegal search and seizure cannot be used in trial.

In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court required all levels of government to operate according to the provisionsof the 4th Amendment. Failure to do so could result in the dismissial of criminal charges against guilty defendants.

United States v. Leon (1984) the Supreme Court establsiehd good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. This meant that a state can introduce at trail evidence seized on the basis of mistakenly issued search warrant.

In California v. Greenwood (1988), the Court said that evidence collected when police search through garbage bags and other containers that people leave outside their houses could be used in Court.

And then we talked about Jeff's car getting pulled over and the right of police officers to search a car. Then...

Right to Privacy

In Griswald v. Conneticut (1965), the Court struck down a Conneticut law that made the use of birth control devices a crime. It said that a zone of privacy is created by guarantees found in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments. Griswald establised the principle that the Bill of Rights as a whole creates a right to make certain personal choices, including the right of a married couple to engage in sexual intercourse for reproduction or pleasure.

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law making it a crime to obtain an abortion except for the purpose of saving a woman's life. The Court based its decision on the right to privacy protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

In Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of a Missouri law that denied the use of purblic employees or publicly funded facilities in the performance of an abortion unless the woman's life was in danger. This was the 1st time that the Court upheld siginificant government restrictions on abortion.

In 1990, the Court split on a two state parental notification laws:
-The Court struck down a state law requiring unwed minors to notify both parents before having an abortion.
-The Court upheld a state law requiring that a physician must notify one parent of a pregnant minor of her intent to have an abortion.

And...that's it.