Upgrade to remove ads
POLI 411 Midterm 3
Terms in this set (52)
California v. Ciraolo (1986)
Premise: Police received anonymous tip that Ciraolo was growing weed at his house. They sent an airplane to observe and spotted marijuana plants.
Question: Is this a search under the Fourth Amendment?
SC Ruling: Legal search because the air is public domain; someone flying in a commercial plane could also see the marijuana.
Bond v. United States (2000)
Premise: Bond was on a bus in Texas when a CBP agent checked luggage. The agent squeezed his bag and found a brick-like object. Bond consented to a search, and meth was found in the bag.
Question: Is this a search under the Fourth Amendment? Is there an expectation that someone would squeeze luggage?
SC Ruling: Search is not legal. The squeezing of the brick is not an expectation of how someone would handle luggage, so there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Kyllo v. United States (2001)
Premise: Police thought Kyllo was growing marijuana in his house, so they used thermal imaging to see if excessive heat was emanating. They found this evidence and then used it to get a warrant.
Question: Does this constitute a search? Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy?
SC Ruling: Thermal imaging is not available to the public and there is an expectation of privacy within one's home, so this does constitute a search.
Florida v. Jardines (2013)
Premise: Police received an anonymous, unverified tip that Jardines was growing marijuana in their home. They brought a drug sniffing dog up to the door which alerted police that there were drugs in the home.
Question: Is this a search under the Fourth Amendment?
SC Ruling: This is a search. People have expectation of privacy in their own home so you would need a warrant to do this.
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Premise: Men pacing around store and kept peering in window and talking to each other. An officer thought they were about to rob the store and performed a stop and frisk search. Officer found guns on them and arrested them.
Question: Are police justified in completing a top and frisk search? Does this violate 4th Amendment protection of a reasonable search?
SC Ruling: Officer was justified b/c police can complete these searches if they feel safety is in question based on specific actions.
Chimel v. California (1969)
If you have a valid warrant, the search is, by definition, reasonable.
US v. Robinson (1973)
Premise: Police stopped Robinson for driving without a license. As he was being patted down, officers found heroin and convicted him of federal drug charges.
Question: Can police search individuals as they are taken into custody? Does this violate 4th Amendment protection of a reasonable search?
SC Ruling: Any search that is incident to an arrest is a lawful search.
Riley v. California (2014)
Premise: Riley was found driving with a suspended license and old registration and was arrested. Officer found Riley's phone and saw references to gang membership that tied him to a shooting. This evidence was used against Riley.
Question: Is looking at a phone an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment?
SC Ruling: Not a reasonable search because it does not pose an immediate safety risk.
Kentucky v. King (2011)
Premise: Officers followed a suspect to an apartment and smelled weed outside the door. As soon as they knocked, the heard a noise that was consistent with destruction of evidence. The police kicked the door down and saw drugs in plain view.
Question: Were police justified in entering the apartment under the 4th Amendment?
SC Ruling: Search is reasonable as long as police didn't cause the panic by threatening those inside.
Florida v. Bostick (1991)
Premise: A bus was stopped and police said they were narcotics officers who wanted to search bags. Bostick gave the officers the okay to do so. The officers found drugs.
Bostick Argument: Illegal search
Florida argument: The seach was optional
SC Ruling: As long as police convey that the search is not required, it is constitutional. Bostick could have just left.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Background: Miranda was accused of raping and killing a girl, but was questioned before being given his rights. He gave a written statement with a note that police added that he confession was given after he had been read his rights.
Question: Is this self-incrimination?
SC Ruling: When someone is in custody, any evidence that comes with the interrogation can't be used if the person does not know their rights.
Berkener v. McCarty (1984)
Premise: OH trooper stopped a driver weaving on a highway. The man also had trouble standing. The officer asked if the man was intoxicated, and man said he had two beers and weed. Once at jail, officer continued the line of questioning but never read the man his Miranda Rights.
Question: What is custody? Did custody start once the police pulled him over?
SC Ruling: Traffic stop is not custody, so do not need to be read Miranda Rights. Anything said at the station is considered custody, so these statements cannot be used.
Howes v. Fields (2011)
Premise: Fields escorted to a conference room within his prison and questioned about a crime that occurred before he went to prison. He was told during questioning that he could leave but was not read his Miranda Rights. Fields never asked to leave and eventually confessed.
Question: Is this interview considered custody?
SC Ruling: Because it was clear that he was free to leave, this is not considered custody, so Miranda Rights not necessary.
US v. Green (2008)
Premise: Drug agents arrest Green for suspicion of trafficking cocaine. He was taken into an interrogation room and shown a security video and advised him of Miranda Rights afterwards. Green looked surprised at the video and lowered his head, which was presented as evidence of guilt.
Question: Was the showing of the video questioning? I.e. what is an interrogation?
SC Ruling: Interrogation/functional equivalent are the same thing, so this was an interrogation.
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
Premise: Group of men accused of raping girl on a train. All charged with rape, which is a capital offense. Judge was required to provide counsel b/c it was a capital case, so he issued a call for counsel and then rushed to trial.
Question: Does the government have an affirmative obligation to provide counsel?
SC Ruling: Under limited circumstances (if defendants not in position to defend b/c education), state must provide counsel under the Due Process of the 14th.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Premise: Gideon charged with breaking and entering a pool hall to commit a misdemeanor, which was a felony. Court didn't have to appoint a lawyer, so Gideon represented himself and lost.
Gideon argument: Right to counsel under the 6th
SC Ruling: State has affirmative obligation through the 6th Amendment and applies this Amendment to the states (overturns Betts).
Lockyer v. Andrade (2003)
Premise: Andrade tried for petty theft, but since he had felonies in the past, this was classified as a felony as well.
Lockyer argument: Cruel and unusual to give jail time for stealing $150
SC Ruling: If legislature wants to punish severely for the 3rd time, it can.
Graham v. Florida (2010)
Premise: Graham, at age 16, tried to rob a BBQ restaurant and was charged as an adult. He pleaded guilty and was given probation after he served a year in prison. He was arrested again after robbing a home at gunpoint and then led cops on a chase and hit a pole. He was sentenced to the ax sentence on each charge (life w/o parole).
Graham Argument: Cruel and unusual because he was still a minor
SC Ruling: Juveniles cannot be given life w/o parole for a non-homicidal crime. Florida was not in the mainstream for giving this punishment--it was cruel and unusual because it's not what society does.
Roper v. Simmons (2005)
Premise: HS students planned to kill someone because they believed they were safe because they were minors. Simmons was arrested, confessed, and charged. Under state law, he was subject to the death penalty.
Question: Is this cruel and unusual?
SC Ruling: Punishment would not be the norm, so it is cruel and unusual.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Premise: Law required railroad companies to provide separate but equal passenger coaches.
Plessy Argument: By separating races, a racial caste system was being imposed and blacks were being treated as lesser (would violate 13th)
Question: To what extent can the state make race-conscious decisions even if they are race-neutral?
SC Ruling: 13th claim is wrong because that just outlawed slavery. This law is not making anyone inferior because it requires equality. Separating people does not undermine the 14th because people are being treated equally. Only has to pass rational basis because the law is race-neutral. Thus, if LA thinks people will be happier because of this law, it is okay.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Premise: Students were bused to certain schools to maintain segregation. It was not an argument of superiority, but just that imposing racial distinctions violated the 14th because of psychological effects.
SC Ruling: The law deprives black children of an equal chance because they would feel inferior and this effect cannot be undone. This was widely based off of psychological research of the time. Law was assumed to intend harm to minorities.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
Premise: Seattle allowed students to apply to any high school in the district. One of the tiebreakers for where a student would go was race. In theory, any race could benefit depending on the situation (race-neutral).
Seattle argument: State had compelling interest to promote diversity within schools.
SC Ruling: No compelling need for state to take race into account absent a history of discrimination.
Strauder v. West Virginia (1879)
Premise: Tested constitutionality of law stating that only white men could be on juries
SC Ruling: Strikes the law down because blacks can be discriminated because they cannot be judged by black juries
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
Premise: SF imposed rule for public safety that restricted laundromats to non-wooden buildings. The law was clearly targeted towards Chinese launderers, who were all in wooden buildings.
SC Ruling: The real reason for the law is discrimination, so they strike it down.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Premise: Roosevelt authorized military to impose restriction on Asian Americans to guard against sabotage. There was a dusk-dawn curfew for Japanese, and Asians were put into camps.
Question: Can government relocate people because of their race?
SC Ruling: Defeat for Korematsu but win for equality. SC says any case where government puts one race at a disadvantage should be judged with strict scrutiny. In this case, this is the only solution to the war with Japan, so it is upheld.
US v. Paradise (1987)
Premise: Alabama had purposefully kept non-white people out of the police force. The court ordered the state to have a 1:1 hiring/promotion scheme. Whites believed they were at a disadvantage because of their race.
Question: Can the government make up for past discrimination?
SC Ruling: There is a compelling state interest to eradicate discrimination of blacks.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Premise: Challenge to public university taking race into account in admissions. UM wanted to diversify their campus. In the undergraduate application, being a minority gave you extra points on the application, which was weighted heavily. In the law school, the school used a holistic approach, so one's status as a minority may or may not have helped.
SC Ruling: Diversity is a compelling state interest, but the undergraduate points system assumes that all minorities can offer diversity and all majority cannot. This is not allowed. There needs to be an individualistic assessment like the law school has.
Washington v. Davis (1976)
Premise: Individuals had to undergo tests and meet physical standards to become a cop in WA. Test 21 was a cognitive test, an 2 challenged their rejections saying that African Americans were systematically excluded from the force because 21's effect was to keep police white.
Question: How does the court handle issues with race specific consequences?
SC Ruling: Disproportionate impact does not nullify the law--only need to use rational basis, and the basis is a competent police force.
McClesky v. Kemp (1987)
Premise: McClesky convicted of murdering a police officer during a robbery--jury is allowed to determine mitigating and aggravating factors. Aggravating factors included an on duty officer and during a robbery, so jury recommended death sentence.
McClesky Argument: Death penalty in GA was given in a racially biased way w/ stats that show death penalty given more to black people.
SC Ruling: Individuals who allege discrimination have the burden of showing that they were discriminated against. McClesky provided no specific evidence to his case that discrimination existed.
Craig v. Boren (1976)
Premise: OK had set majority age as 18 for females and 21 for males. Legislature changed it to 18 for all except the age that beer could be sold.
Craig argument: Violation of equal protection and rational basis
Boren argument: Reason for the law is that men are more reckless
SC Ruling: Intermediate scrutiny. This law is lacking.
O'Connor v. BOE of SD #23 (1981 CoA)
Premise: O'Connor played on a HS basketball team. The conerence required separate teams for boys and girls, but she wanted to play on the boys team. BoE denied the request.
BoE Argument: Different teams give greatest opportunity for success because boys may take over both teams without separation.
SC Ruling: This meets intermediate scrutiny because it is substantially related to an important objective.
MS University for Woman v. Hogan (1982)
Premise: Hogan was a male RN and wanted more training at a local university. He was denied admission at the university because only women were allowed.
SC Ruling: Gender-specific violates equal opportunity. Additionally, women have never been denied the opportunity to be nurses.
US v. Virginia (1996)
Premise: VMI's mission was to produce citizen solders. They believed that co-education would not allow the school to work properly. VA proposed a comparable school for women.
SC Ruling: Not persuaded that only male VMI passes intermediate scrutiny--there is too much generalization between the genders (assuming women can't/wont is just perpetuating a stereotype).
Katz v. US (1967)
Premise: FBI thought Katz was engaging in illegal bookmarking. They placed wiretaps on top of telephone booth without a warrant to do so.
Katz Argument: Expectation of privacy within a phone booth
US Argument: No physical trespass occurred and there is no expectation of privacy
SC Ruling: 4th protects people, not places. A reasonable person would expect privacy within a phone booth.
Key Outcome: Reasonable expectation of privacy applies to all search and seizure
US v. Jones (2012)
Premise: FBI suspected Jones of cocaine trafficking and kept his nightclub under surveillance, including a wiretap and camera. Officers also got warrant to install GPS but did not abide by its specifications.
US Argument: Person in automobile has no expectation of privacy, and GPS did not interfere with anything, so it was not a search/seizure.
Jones Argument: Reasonable expectation that government would not GPS track you.
SC Ruling: Placing GPS constitutes a search--the government physically occupied private property. Doing so is a violation of the 4th.
Illinois v. Gates (1983)
Premise: Police get anonymous letter that said Gates stole drugs. A warrant was issued and the police found the drugs.
Illinois Argument: Informant was knowledgable enough b/c of specifics in the letter. Police verified flight info provided in the letter and the informant had no reason to lie.
Gates Argument: Credibility of letter not established, and the application for the warrant did not include how informant got the info. Therefore, no probable cause.
SC Ruling: Letter itself does not establish probable cause. The investigation plus the letter is probable cause, so Illinois wins.
Safford USD #1 v. Redding (2009)
Premise: Redding was called into the AP's office and shown a planner with knives, cigarettes, and drugs. Safford said the planner was hers but not the stuff. Ap searched bookbag with permission and then sent her to nurse to be strip searched.
SC Ruling: Backpack and outer clothing search was justifiable, but the context of suspicion did not match the degree of intrusion for the strip search.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Premise: Police tried to enter home because they believed Mapp was harboring a fugitive. Mapp reused them entry, but they eventually broke the door down, claiming they had a warrant. They did not find the fugitive but seized obscene materials.
Mapp Argument: Materials were old roommate's and she couldn't destroy them. No warrant for obscene materials was produced.
Ohio Argument: No exclusionary rule, so evidence can still be used even if it violated search and seizure.
SC Ruling: All evidence obtained through illegal search/seizure is impermissible
US v. Leon (1984)
Premise: Police received tip from unproven source IDing Stewart and Sanchez as drug dealers. Police started surveillance and spotted a car that belonged to a drug dealer. The warrant was based on this information and another informant. The state admitted that the first informant lacked credibility, so the warrant shouldn't have been issued, but the police was still acting in good faith.
US Argument: Exclusionary rule should have good faith exception
Leon Argument: Exclusionary law provides incentive to follow Constitution; no cost-benefit analysis should be applied to fundamental 4th rights.
SC Ruling: If magistrate is detached and neutral when issuing a warrant, it is okay as long as police isn't being reckless. Point of exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct, not punish good faith.
Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
Premise: MI police obtained proper warrant but did not wait for a reasonable amount of time for Hudson to answer the door. The police found drugs and a firearm.
SC Ruling: Police were going to find the evidence either way. Knock and announce has never protected people from government executing a warrant, and the exclusionary rule would cause everyone to say knock and announce was illegal. Social costs of exclusionary > benefits.
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Premise: Police arrested Escobedo for murdering his brother in law. A friend told police the entire story and police refused to let Escobedo see his lawyer. After 14 hours of questioning, Escobedo made damaging statements about himself.
SC Ruling: When process shifts from investigatory to accusatory, one must be given the right to counsel.
Missouri v. Seibert (2004)
Premise: Seibert's sone had cerebral palsy died. Seibert tried to make the death look accidental by burning down her mobile home, which killed another person. Officer took Seibert in but did not read her her Miranda Rights. Seibert made incriminating statements and then officer read her rights and made her say them again. Officer said this was a plan of the police group.
SC Ruling: Miranda in the middle of questioning is misleading and deprives defendant of the belief she had genuine right to remain silent. Seibert's post-warning statements are inadmissible.
Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)
Premise: Sheppard was killed at a lakefront house--husband was knocked out but remembered seeing a figure. Negative publicity against the husband was prevalent, and he was eventually arrested for the murder. Jury's names were published and there was so much press at the trial that it was hard to hear.
Sheppard Argument: Effectively tried and convicted by the media. Trial judge was up for election and not impartial, and the jury was using phones during the trial.
Maxwell Argument: Sheppard didn't prove prejudice of the judge and did not challenge the jury selection.
SC Ruling: Totality of circumstances=lack of due process in that the trial took place at home, the jurors were celebrities, and the judge failed to insulate them. Therefore, the trial was not fair.
Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia
Premise: VA court convicted man of murder, but conviction was reversed b/c of error; next few trials also ended in mistrials. Attorneys agreed to close the trial to the press.
Papers Argument: Constitution guarantees right to attend and observe trial.
VA Argument: 1st/6th do not guarantee this right
SC Ruling: No explicit provision that they are constitutionally allowed to enter, but no higher concern to the public than how trials are handled. Therefore, the right to attend criminal trials is implicit in the 1st.
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Premise: GA proposed to change death penalty cases where trial would be 2 staged into the guilt and penalty stages. Mitigating and aggravating factors were taken into account in the penalty stage, and prosecution must prove that 1+ aggravating factor existed. Gregg was convicted under this law.
Gregg Argument: Law allowed discretionary judgments and arbitrary imposition of penalty.
SC Ruling: Death is not cruel and unusual--public opinion not super against it. Since jury is inexperienced, providing it with guidelines may help it. GA system is okay.
Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Premise: Atkins and Jones robbed a store and killed a man. Each claimed the other did it, but the jury believed Jones and sentenced Atkins to death. At 2nd trial, psychologist said Atkins was mildly retarded.
Atkins Argument: Sentence of death is disproportionate to culpability of mentally ill.
VA Argument: Precedent says capital punishment to mentally ill is okay.
SC Ruling: Direction of change is away from allowing mentally ill to be executed. Since the goal of the death penalty is retribution, it doesn't hold for mentally ill people. Death s not suitable for mentally retarded individuals.
Sweatt v. Painter (1950)
Premise: Sweatt denied admission to UT Law b/c he was black. No other school in TX allowed blacks, so Texas made one.
SC Ruling: Schools are not equal in terms of faculty, alumni, libraries, etc. Therefore, Sweatt must be admitted to UT Law.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)
Premise: Results of desegregation were unsatisfactory, but there was controversy over what to do.
Swann Argument: Plan approved by district court will yield good results and busing is acceptable
CMBOE Argument: Constitution doesn't require a racial balancing plan, and compulsory busing isn't allowed.
SC Ruling: Limited use of mathematical ratios by District Court is okay, and because of the history of discrimination, gerrymandering is okay and so is busing. As long as District Court was reasonable it could do whatever.
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)
Premise: CLC planned to operate a group home for 13 mentally retarded people. City voted to deny the permit. CLC claimed discrimination against mentally ill.
City Argument: Rational basis that facility would be near school and on flood plain.
CLC Argument: Violation of equal protection
SC Ruling: Rational basis applied. No rational basis exists that the home would prove to be any sort of threat.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Premise: Jeter (black) and Loving get married and return to VA. Charged w/ evading anti miscegenation laws.
SC Ruling: Racial classifications subject to most rigid scrutiny. No purpose to the law other than discrimination, and VA law only prohibits interracial marriages involving white people, which is just engraining white supremacy. Marriage is a basic right and can't deny over race.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Premise: UC Davis only admitted 3 minority students, so they developed 2 pipelines. Special pipeline were judged only against each other. Bakke got rejected twice but was very qualified and sued for violating 14th.
SC Ruling: Special admissions is classification based on race. Equal protection can't mean something to one person and another to someone else. Gov doesn't provide a reason for substantial interest, so the program is not necessary.
Reed v. Reed
Premise: Reeds' adopted son died and left $750 in estate. ID statue said males had preference to the estate. Sally Reed challenged, saying it violated equal protection.
SC Ruling: Arbitrary preference for men is violation of equal protection, and intermediate scrutiny is not met.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
Unit 7 history
PSC 319 Final
History Chapter 3 elisa
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
POLI 411 Midterm 2
ECON 450 Midterm Formulas
POLI 411 Midterm
POLI 208 Final
OTHER QUIZLET SETS
Government midterm 2013-2014 (cases)
CRJU Test 2
test 3 crim pro court cases