Probable Cause

a level of reasonable belief (based on facts that can be articulated) that is required to sue a person in civil court, or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court.

**used in criminal law as basis for searching and arresting a person, therefore depriving them of their "liberty"**

Racial Profiling

the consideration of race, ethnicity or national origin, by an officer of the law in deciding when and how to intervene in an enforcement capacity.

Voluntary consent

consent given by free will, without any force, or undue pressure/influence or coercion on the person giving it, or on his/her own initiative

"Stop-and-Frisk" searches

Good Faith Exception

a doctrine that is an exception to the exclusionary rule, it provides that illegally gathered evidence can be admitted at trial if police officers have reason to believe their actions are legal.

**The "good faith" rule allows the courts to consider the mental state of the police officer**

Baldus Study

study by David Baldus (Univ. of Iowa) that found: prosecutors sought the death penalty 70% of the time when there was a black defendant and a white victim; 15% for black def/black vict; 19% white def/black vict.

**Found in GA, that those who murdered whites were 4x more likely to have a death sentence imposed than those who murdered whites**

(in the context of abortion)

Informed Consent

laws that require a women seeking an abortion to recieve factual information from the abortion provider about her legal rights; alternatives (such as adoption); available public & private assistance; and medical "facts" before any abortion is performed (usually 24hrs in advance)

**sometimes called "right to know" lawss**

(in the context of abortion)

Trimester Framework

a) For the stage prior to approx. the end of the 1st trimester, the abortion decision and it's effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

b) For the stage subsequent to approx. the end of the 1st trimester, the State, (in promoting its interest in the health of the mother) may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State, (in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life) may, if it chooses, regulate and even proscribe abortion-except when necess. (in app med judgement) to the health of the mother.  

(in the context of abortion)

Partial-birth Abortion

RICO

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

a united states federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization

Eugenics

the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

**Developed largely by Francis Galton, as method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis**

Separate but Equal Doctrine

de facto segregation

racial discrimination and segregation in the USA (during the 1950-60s) esp. occuring in public schools that happens "by fact" rather than by legal requirement.

**For example often the concentration of African Americans in certain neighboorhoods produces neighboorhood schools that are predominatly black or segregated in fact (de facto) not by law (de jure)

de jure segregation

refers to the legal segregation of groups in society

Jim Crow Laws

Issues/Conditions addressed in

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals against employment discrimination on the bases of race and color, as well as national origin, sex, and religion

. Equal employment opportunity cannot be denied any person because of his/her racial group or perceived racial group, his/her race-linked characteristics (e.g., hair texture, color, facial features), or because of his/her marriage to or association with someone of a particular race or color. Title VII also prohibits employment decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions about abilities, traits, or the performance of individuals of certain racial groups.

Craig v. Boren (1976)

An oklahoma was challenged as discriminatory bc the law prohibited the sale of "nonintoxicating" beer (3.2%) to males under the age of 21 and femals under the age of 18.

The issue for the court to decide was: did an oklahoma statue violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause by establishing different drinking ages for men and women?

In a 7-to 2 decision the court held that the statue made unconstitutional gender classifications.

Framers view of "blank warrants"

What is the exclusionary rule?

In its’ most basic form the rule allows a court to exclude from trial any evidence that the government has illegally obtained.

The basis for exclusion is to protect the public from government intrusion by requiring a search warrant before evidence can be taken from private property

Supreme Court cases:

Development of and incorporation of the exclusionary rule

Weeks v. U.S.

Wolf v. Colorado

Elkins v. U.S.

 Mapp v. Ohio

U.S. v. Leon

Nix v. Williams

Police have an arrest warrant, but no search warrant:

What can the police search and seize that is constitutionally admissible in court?

After an arrest, police officers have the right to protect themselves by searching for weapons and to protect the legal case against the suspect by searching for evidence that the suspect might try to destroy. Police also make what’s known as a “protective sweep”

When making a protective sweep, police officers can walk through a residence and make a “cursory visual inspection” of places where an accomplice might be hiding. If a sweep is lawful, the police can lawfully seize contraband or evidence of crime that is in plain view during the sweep

The Plain View doctrine covers what police officers do not need a warrant to search and seize.

Legal representation at trial for the "poor"

Supreme Court cases:

Powell v. Alabama (1932): radically expanded the rights of the criminally indicted in capital cases; the Court’s willingness to set the federal standards of constitutional right to counsel onto state criminal proceedings was an outstanding development

Betts v. Brady (1942): special circumstances for right to counsel; the court ruled, the indigent defendant had "no special circumstance" that existed that placed the defendant at a disadvantage, &was not in fact entitled to a court-appointed attorney during his trial 

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): The Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way."  In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation.

The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination." specifically outlining the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations.

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980)

After a picture identification, unarmed Thomas J. Innis was arrested by police. Innis was advised of his Miranda rights and subsequently requested to speak with a lawyer. While escorting Innis to the station in a police car, three officers began discussing the shotgun involved in the robbery. One of the officers commented that there was a school for handicapped children in the area and that if one of the students found the weapon he might injure himself. Innis then interrupted and told the officers to turn the car around so he could show them where the gun was located.

The Court found that the officers' conversation did not qualify as words or actions that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit such a response from Innis.

Current standard for judging counsel ineffective

A Two-prong test set out in Strickland v. Washington, set the current standard. Under this test first, defendant must demonstrate that attorney’s performance was deficient. To satisfy this requirement, the defendant must show that, under all of the circumstances and prevailing professional norms, the attorney’s performance fell below the objective standard of reasonableness. Second, defendant must demonstrate that the attorney’s deficient performance prejudiced him or her. To satisfy this requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, if not for the attorney’s unprofessional errors, the result of the trial would have been different. The probability is “reasonable” if it is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial.

Supreme Court opinion: Captial Punishment

Gregg v. Georgia

Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment?

 In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed. Georgia's death penalty statute assures the judicious and careful use of the death penalty by requiring a bifurcated proceeding where the trial and sentencing are conducted separately, specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime and the nature of the defendant, and a comparison of each capital sentence's circumstances with other similar cases. Moreover, the Court was not prepared to overrule the Georgia legislature's finding that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an appropriate means of social retribution against its most serious offenders.

Issues raised in the following cases:

McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)

Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988)

Stanford v. Kentucky (1989)

McCleskey v. Kemp (1987):“Baldus study” that proved that the imposition of the death penalty in Georgia depended to some extent on the race of the victim and the accused; Court held that since McCleskey could not prove that purposeful discrimination which had a discriminatory effect on him existed in this particular trial, there was no constitutional violation

Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988): 1st case to deal w/dealth penalty for juveniles; court held that execution of a fifteen year old violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment.

Stanford v. Kentucky (1989): imposition of the death sentence on convicted capital offenders below the age of 18 years old, violate the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment? No in this case it is necessary to look at the given society's evolving decency standards. There is no national consensus about it; Thus, the decision whether to subject 17 or 16 year olds to capital punishment must be made locally by the states and cannot be categorically pronounced as cruel and unusual punishment at this time.

Capital Punishment:

During the time of Constitution construction

v.

Changes during the 1960s

First, when the Eighth Amendment ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” was adopted, at that time there was a uniformed acceptance of capital punishment by all the states. Second, there is an overall interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to mean that life can be taken, just like property and liberty, as long as due process of the law is followed.

In the late 1960’s civil rights activists challenged the constitutionality of capital punishment focusing on three major issues: racial discrimination during application of the law (mainly the race of the victim), the arbitrary random and unsophisticated way it was applied, and the lack of separate trial and sentencing phases during capital cases

Supreme Court Cases:

Under what circumstances does an individual have a "right to die"?

The Matter of Karen Ann Quinlan: NJ supreme Court- permitted withdrawal of life-support measures for a woman in a persistent vegetative state, although her condition was stable and her life expectancy stretched years into the future

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health : the Court considered whether Missouri could insist on proof by "clear and convincing evidence" of a comatose patient's desire to terminate her life before allowing her family's wish to disconnect her feeding tube to be carried out-the Court upheld the state's insistence upon clear and specific evidence that the patient would wish to have intravenous feeding discontinued

Supreme Court Cases:

Under what circumstances does an individual have a "right to die"?

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) and Vacco v. Quill :

The lower courts in each case, one involving a Washington state law and another a New York statute, found the laws unconstitutional, at least in the way that they were applied. The Supreme Court reversed the decision in both cases, finding the laws to be constitutional.  Although the Court interpreted Cruzan as recognizing a right to refuse medical treatment, the Court found no constitutional basis for a right to assisted suicide.

Gonzales v Oregon:the Court ruled that Attorney General Ashcroft exceeded his powers under the Controlled Substances Act when he threatened prosecution against Oregon doctors prescribing lethal drugs under that state's Death with Dignity Act.

What may a state require before an individual's choice of the (right to die) be honored?

Oregon, Washington, Montana & Vermont all have similar requirements for voluntary self-termination of life. These include:

1. the patient must have made two verbal requests and another in writing with a witness for the doctors to end his or her life. (*gen needs to be 15days apart)

2. Two doctors also need to agree on the diagnosis, the prognosis of the disease and the capability of the patient (*gen needs to be term illness w/life exp of 6mos or less)

3. The patient will have to personally administer the medication

**pt needs to be a resident of state in which is applying**

Right to Privacy Cases:

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

In 1919, Nebraska, prohibited the teaching of modern foreign languages to grade school children, the law- initially enacted as an emergency measure to protect against insurrection during World War I. Meyer- petitioner -taught German in a Lutheran school, was convicted under this law. Did the Nebraska statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause. The Court held that the Nebraska law was unconstitutional. Nebraska violated the “liberty” protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore the law was invalidated by the Court, Justice McReynolds concluded the right, “generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by men was protected by the Due Process Clause. The Court also noted that, “the American people have always regarded education and acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance which should be diligently supported. 

Right to Privacy Cases:

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

the court held in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) that the Due Process Clause permitted parents to establish and send their children to private (parochial) schools if they so choose. This ruling overturned a 1922 Oregon law, The Compulsory Education Act of 1922, which required parents or guardians to send children between the ages of eight and sixteen to public school in the district where the children resided. Writing for the majority, Justice McReynolds, stated that, “the fundamental theory of liberty…excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers. Once again the Court relied on an abstract version of the liberty provision of the Due Process Clause in determining their unanimous decision, arguing that essentially it protected such fundamental human rights that there was no further need of constitutional specifications. 

Right to Privacy Cases:

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)

the Court in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), decided that the Oklahoma Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act was unconstitutional. Arthur Skinner-petitioner, was convicted under this act which allowed the state to sterilize a person who had been convicted three or more times of crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude. The Supreme Court was left to decide if the Act violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. A unanimous decision by the Court held that the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since some crimes such as embezzlement, punishable as felonies in Oklahoma, were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction, Justice Douglas reasoned that the law had laid "an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense. Douglas viewed procreation as one of the fundamental rights requiring the judiciary's strict scrutiny. This view that marriage and procreation were substantive liberties protected by the constitution was something that the Court had not recognized up until this case.

Right to Privacy Cases:

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

This case was the first to deal with the power of the State to regulate the freedom to marry, and in this case an interracial marriage. In Loving v. Virginia (1967), a unanimous decision by the Court, invalidated one of the last remaining “Southern” laws that banned interracial marriage. A couple was then charged with violating the state's “antimiscegenation” statute, which banned inter-racial marriage. the Supreme Court, delivered a unanimous opinion, Referring back to Skinner, “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.” The Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination” also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State" Again, the decision of the Court referred back to the protection of an individual’s liberty as a constitutional right.

What does the Hyde Amendment Prohibit?

prevents Medicaid and any other programs under these departments from funding abortions, except in limited cases, mainly stating “None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.  in 1993, the Hyde Amendment was rewritten in a new format and the exceptions were expanded beyond “life of the mother” to cases of rape or incest.

**It also notes that none of the above mentioned funds can be used for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion**

Virginia Military Academy Case

United States v. Virginia (1996)

Majority  Opinions

Maj opinion: 7 to 1, Justice Ginsburg del: main point- VMI failed to show any exceedingly persuasive justification for the single-sex admission policy (which in court's opinion violated the 14th amend equal protection clause). Also parallel prog-VWIL "would not provide women the same exclusive type of rigorous military training VMI is famed for." Add, the other aspects of VWIL did not meet the standard set forth associated with VMIs prog and alumni. Chief Justice Reinhurst- concurr op: agreed w/maj opin, however stated that if virginia had made a genuine effort to provide a comparable program for women then they would have been able to avoid an equal protection violation.

Virginia Military Academy Case

United States v. Virginia (1996)

Minority Opinion

Justice Scalia del the only dissenting opinion: argued that the standard applied by the Maj was closer to "strict scrunity" rather than the "intermidiate scrunity" applied to previous cases dealing with sex-based equal protections cases. Additionally arguing if the standard for judging sex-based classifications were to be reconsidered the question would be not whether to raised the review to strict scrunity, but rather to reduce it to a rational-basis review. His dissent was based on the function of the court to preserve societys values on equal protection, not revises them. Stating that it is only necess to apply honestly the standard that the court has been utilizing for the past two decades.  

Virginia Military Academy Case

How does the ruling reflect the Supreme Court's opinion on gender/education/equal protections cases?

Original Intent of the 14th Amendment

Supreme Court cases:

Automobile searches

Carroll v. U.S. (set forth probable cause search justification)

Cardwell v. lewis (justified bc people have lower expectation of privacy in car rather than home)

California v. Acevedo announced that the Fourth Amendment does not require a distinction between Probable Cause to search an entire vehicle, including containers found inside (as in Ross), and probable cause to search only a container found inside an automobile (as in Sanders). The Court announced a new and succinct rule regarding automobile searches:"The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained."

Robinson v. California (1962)

A California statute made it a criminal offense for a person to "be addicted to the use of narcotics."

Was the California law an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?

In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court held that laws imprisoning persons afflicted with the "illness" of narcotic addiction inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

the court likened the law to one that makes it a criminal offense to be mentally ill.

texas law making it a crime to be intoxicated in a public place, deendant tried to use chronic alcoholism defense;

court upheld his conviction; cannot use this defense to get out of the crime, when he clearly stated in his testimony that he could stop his drinking on the day of the trial; therefore he did have control of it.

Griswold v. Connecticut

Zone of privacy establishment

Lawrence v. Texas

Lawrence v. Texas (2003) struck down a Texas state law that prohibited certain forms of intimate sexual contact between members of the same sex. Without stating a standard of review in the majority opinion, the court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), declaring that the "Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." Justice O'Connor, who wrote a concurring opinion, framed it as an issue of rational basis review. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, based on the liberty interest protected in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, stated that the Texas anti-sodomy statute touched "upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home," and attempted to "control a personal relationship that . . . is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished." Thus, the Court held that adults are entitled to participate in private, consensual sexual conduct. While the opinion in Lawrence was framed in terms of the right to liberty, Kennedy described the "right to privacy" found in Griswold as the "most pertinent beginning point" in the evolution of the concepts embodied in Lawrence.

Bowers v. Hardwick

defendant convicted for consentual homosexual sodomy; challenged the constitutionality of the law under a fundamental right; the court declined to uphold any constitutional right to protect sodomy- stating that it did not meet standards "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in the nations history & tradition"

The decision of the court was based on the fear of "judge- made constitutional law"

Romer v. Evans

Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."

Does Amendment 2 of Colorado's State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Yes, 6 to 3 decision, violates equal protection clause.

Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination