Case Law Flashcards
Right to remain silent
Miranda v Arizona
expands the right of the govt to search and surveil without court order, and now applies to certain domestic terrorism situations
US Patriot Act
established the test about what is free speech on school campuses
Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District
What did Bethel School District v Fraser and Hazlewood School District v Kuhlmeier oppose?
The decision in Tinker v Des Moines, stating that lewd speech at a school assembly is not constitutionally protected
authorized removal/suspension of employee if the reason is based on employee’s speech which affects the employing agency
Arnett v Kennedy
If employee did not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern, then no first amendment protection
Garcetti v Ceballos
Duty to warn
Tarasoff v Regents of the Univ of California
Offers an objective standard for evaluating if a statement is a true threat, thus making it unprotected by the first amendment
US v Orozco-Santillan
Advocacy of the use of force or of law violation is protected unless such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action
Brandenburg v Ohio
intimidation is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death
Virginia v Black
established the test about what is considered free speech on school campuses as long as it does not materially disrupt or substantially disorder or invade the rights of others
Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District
The decision in ____ v ____, held that a student’s lewd speech at a school assembly is not constitutionally protected, reaffirming the principal in the other case ___ v ____, that students’ rights in public schools don’t automatically coextend with rights of adults in other settings
Bethel School District v Fraser………NJ v TLO
First amendment isn’t violated by educators exercising reasonable editorial powers over a school newspaper
Hazlewood School District v Kuhlmeier
The Supreme Court balanced governmental interests and employee rights, sustaining the constitutionality of federal statue that authorized removal or suspension without pay of an employee
Arnett v Kennedy
If an employee didn’t speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern, then the employee has no first amendment cause of action based on employer’s reaction to the speech
Garcetti v Ceballos
the First Amendment does not protect true threats. The Court also explained that political hyperbole does not qualify as such a threat.
Watts v United States
Also offers an objective standard of a true threat, emphasizing whether a reasonable person would perceive the statement as a serious expression
United States v Orozco-Santillan
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school officials did not violate a student’s First Amendment right of free expression when they temporarily expelled him for submitting a violent-themed poem to his English teacher.
LaVine v Blaine School District
whether the protection of the First Amendment extends to government employees who make extremely critical remarks about the President
Rankin v McPherson
students cannot be penalized for what they are thinking. If thoughts are then expressed in speech, the ability of the school to censor or punish the speech will be determined by whether it is a (1) true threat or (2) disruptive of the normal operation of the school
D.G. v Independent School District No. 11
a student’s rights were not violated when he got expelled after publishing a website with offensive comments about his algebra teacher, including a section “why should the teacher die” — although it occurred off school grounds, it substantially affected school functions, as the teacher became genuinely afraid,
J.S. v Bethlehem Area School District
For public sector employee speech to be protected, it must (1) involve an issue of public concern, like a significant event (2) outweigh the govt employer’s interest in avoiding impediments to carrying out its mission
Connick v Meyers
Defendants who are intellectually disabled cannot be sentenced to death
Atkins v Virginia
States can set own insanity standards which leads to convoluted understanding
Clark v Arizona
A state may only confine a person to a psychiatric hospital against that person’s will if the sate proves by clear and convincing evidence that the person is mentally ill and dangerous
Addington v Texas
Public school officials are subject to the 4th amendment because as “public school officials” they act under the umbrella of govt authority. But, because of the nature of school, they do not need to show probable cause; instead, they must show reasonable concern.
NJ v TLO
employers may be liable to their employees for harassment by non-employees. Courts have found liability for this so-called “third-party harassment” in some of the following fact-specific contexts: waitresses harassed by their dining customers; casino dealers suffering harassment from gamblers at the table; and vendors being harassed by clients they visit onsite for sales and service calls
Gardner v CLC of Pascagoula
Capital punishment is unconstitutional for people under 16
Thompson v Oklahoma
Capital punishment is unconstitutional for people under 18
Roper v Simmons
Life without parole unconstitutional for people under 18 convicted of crimes other than homicide
Graham v Florida
Life without parole unconstitutional for people under 18 even if convicted of homicide
Miller v Alabama
Supreme Court case concerning whether conviction of threatening another person over interstate lines requires proof of subjective intent to threaten or whether it is enough to show that a “reasonable person” would regard the statement as threatening
Elonis v United States
This case created a clear distinction between the duty to protect and the subordinate duty to warn and made communications by a third party indicating threatening statements equivalent to statements made directly by that person.
Ewing v Goldstein
In civil cases, under most circumstances, a prosecutor receives absolute immunity and is protected from civil liability while acting in an official capacity, which is when it’s an integral part of the judicial process
Falls v Superior Court (Samaniego)
Prosecutors in civil cases can be liable if make statements that minimize the actual danger to a victim
M.B. v City of San Diego
Prosecutors in civil cases can be liable if request that a citizen perform an official function that involves a foreseeable risk of danger
Walker v County of Los Angeles
a univ has a special relationship with a student and corresponding duty to take reasonable measures to prevent his or her suicide
Dzung Duy Nguyen v Massachusetts’s Institute of Technology
postsecondary schools have a duty to keep students safe from foreseeable criminal assaults while they’re engaged as part of the school’s curriculum/services
Rosen v Regents of the Univ of California
When campus based law enforcement officers are involved, there is a split in authority whether the standard to be applied is __________ or ______________
probable cause or reasonable under the circumstances
When campus based law enforcement officers are involved, the lower threshold of “reasonable under the circumstances” is applied when the officers act as agents of the school
State of Florida v N.G.B.
When campus based law enforcement officers are involved, the higher threshold of “probable cause” when the school conducts the search at the request of the campus based officer
New Hampshire v Heirtzler
The federal govt can only criminalize those threats of violence directed against the president
R.A.V. v St. Paul Minnesota
Tarasoff 1974 vs 1976
duty to warn vs protect
both prongs of civil commitment, mental illness and dangerousness, must be met to justify involuntary commitement
foucha v louisiana
defendant should not be released from invol commitment following NGRI until no longer dangerous
Jones v US
Notice t the convicted offender and an adversary hearing were necessary before invol correctional transfer but representation by counsel was not
Vitek v Jones
defendant must be notified prior to the evaluation if the results of a pretrial evaluation could be used at capital sentencing
Estelle v Smith
Held that psychiatrists had some expertise in predicting violent behavior and allowed testimony in responses to hypothetical questions
barefoot v estelle
state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in the community by himself or with assistance
O’Connor v Donaldson
Allowed post-sentence commitment of sexually violent predators based on finding of dangerousness to self or others related to a mental abnormality or personality disorder
Kansas v Hendricks
7 types of violent true believers
Fledgling
Affiliative
Psychotic
Criminal
Opportunistic
Unwavering
Betrayer
