5 Written Questions
4 Multiple Choice Questions
- The Court upheld the conviction of an individual who had been found w/drugs sitting in plain view in his car. The police had no "probably cause" indicating that drugs were in the car, but they had a hunch that the driver was a drug dealer and used a minor traffic infraction as a pretext to stop his car. Also reaffirmed the plain view doctrine- admissibility of evidence found in plain view even relating to a different charge.
- Issue: STATEMENT MADE TO THE POLICE WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY ABOUT FINDING THE VICTIM'S BODY. Decision: FOUND THAT EVIDENCE LEARNED BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS MAY STILL BE USED IF THEY CAN PROVE THEY WOULD HAVE DISCOVERED IT ANYWAY USING CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS. Special Terminology: "INEVITABLE DISCOVERY" EXCEPTION TO THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE.
- During questioning about a robbery, Charles Dickerson confessed to being the getaway driver in a series of bank robberies. Its said, he waived his miranda rights, but he said he was not read them til after he made his statements. Court ruled that Congress could not pass a law that would contradict a Supreme Court ruling. (cited Marybury v. Madison)
- (Freedom of the Press): FIRST TIME "FREEDOM OF THE PRESS APPLIED TO THE STATES." Issue: ABOUT PRIOR RESTRAINT/ JAY NEAR CAN'T PUBLISH ALL STORIES! Decision: IT WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME FREEDOM OF THE PRESS APPLIED TO THE STATES.- DON'T FORGET THIS!!!!!
4 True/False Questions
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) → Issue: SECRET GOV'T DOCUMENTS BEING PRINTED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES. Decision: COURT RULED THAT THE "TIMES" COULD PRINT THEM BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT ENDANGER U.S. FORCES.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) → The 14th amend. ban on unreasonable searches applies to those conducted by public school officials as well as by law enforcement personnel; the Court used a less strict standard of "reasonable suspicion" to conclude that the search of a student's purse by school officials did not violate the 4th + 14th amends.
Duncan v. Lousiana (1968)? → Issue: STATEMENT MADE TO THE POLICE WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY ABOUT FINDING THE VICTIM'S BODY. Decision: FOUND THAT EVIDENCE LEARNED BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS MAY STILL BE USED IF THEY CAN PROVE THEY WOULD HAVE DISCOVERED IT ANYWAY USING CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS. Special Terminology: "INEVITABLE DISCOVERY" EXCEPTION TO THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) → (Crimin. procedure) Issue: SEARCH WARRANTS BEING LEGAL OR ILLEGAL/ OBSCENE PHOTOS. Decision: COURT RULED THAT EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY SEARCHES AND SEIZURES IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS INADMISSIBLE IN COURT.