Exam 2 Cases Flashcards
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Free Speech
* Group of students wear armbands to school in support of a truce in Vietnam. The school prohibited the use and punished several students.
* Did the school violate the the students’ freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment?
* Yes. Armbands represent pure speech separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. Court held students do not lose rights to freedom of speech when on school grounds.
Cemented students’ rights to free speech in public schools
New York Times v. United States (1971)
Freedom of the Press
* Nixon Admin attempted to prevent the NYT & Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam by claiming executive authority.
* Did the Nixon administration’s efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed “classified information” violate the First Amendment?
* Yes. In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the “heavy presumption against” prior restraint of the press in this case.
* Cemented right of free press against prior restraint by the government.
Cox v. Cohen (1975)
Freedom of the Press
* After obtaining information from public record, a station broadcast the name of a rape victim. This violated a Georgia privacy statute which prevented members of the media from publicizing the names or identities of rape victims.
* Did the Georgia law violate the freedom of the press as protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments?
* Georgia statute violated the Constitution. The news media is an important resource for citizens which allows them to scrutinize government proceedings. Commissions and adjudication of crimes are issues relevant to the public interest. Interests of privacy “fade” in cases where controversial information already appears on the public record.
Victim information, if available publically (public records) and facts surrounding the prosecution of that crime are matters of public concern and protected
NAACP v. Alabama (1958)
Freedom of Association
* Alabama sought to prevent the NAACP from conducting further business in the state. The state issued a subpoena for various records, including the NAACP’s membership lists.
* Did Alabama’s requirement violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
* Yes. “Immunity from state scrutiny of petitioner’s membership lists is here so related to the right of petitioner’s members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in doing so as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
* Freedom of Association is a right protected
Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984)
**Freedom of Association **
* Membership in the Jaycees was limited to males between the ages of 18 and 35. 2 chapters in Minnesota admitted women. National organization revoked the chapters’ licenses, filed a discrimination claim under a Minnesota anti-discrimination law.
* Did Minnesota’s attempts to enforce the anti-discrimination law violate the Jaycees’ right to free association under the First Amendment?
* Minnesota’s state antidiscrimination law prohibiting a private organization from excluding a person from membership based on sex is constitutional, because the state had a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination which outweighed the right of freedom of association
Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
4th Ammendment | Plain View
* A bullet was fired through the floor of Hicks’s apartment which injured a man in the apartment below. During the search (based on probable cause), an officer noticed equipment which he suspected had been stolen. The officer moved some of the components, recorded their serial numbers, and seized them upon learning from police headquarters that his suspicions were correct.
* Was the search of the stereo equipment (a search beyond the exigencies of the original entry) reasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
* No. The Court found that the search and seizure of the stereo equipment violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. You cannot touch or move things and still claim the Plain View Doctrine.*
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)
Private Groups
* Boy Scouts of America revoked Dale’s adult membership when the organization discovered that he was a homosexual and a gay rights activist. Violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation
* Does the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law violate the Boy Scouts’ 1A right of expressive association to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders?
* Yes. Court held that applying NJ’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts’ 1A right of expressive association.
Laws that prohibit discrimination against protected groups in public accommodations do not prevent private organizations from expelling members based on a protected status.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
- Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation.
- Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?
- The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody.
Established Miranda Rights.
In re: Gault (1967)
- Teen was taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone call to a neighbor. Gault had previously been placed on probation. The police did not inform Gault’s parents, who were at work, when the youth was arrested.
- Were the procedures used to commit Gault constitutionally legitimate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
- The proceedings of the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Juvenile criminal defendants are entitled to Due Process protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
- Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration.
- Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?
- Johnson’s burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson’s actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
- Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be “casing a job, a stick-up.” The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them.
- Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
- The search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer’s safety incident to the investigation.
Katz v. United States (1967)
- Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted.
- Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?
- Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. “The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,”
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
- Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.
- Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment?
- All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court.
Evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
- Roosevelt signed E.O 9066 two months after Pearl Harbor. A Japanese-American, Korematsu, chose to stay at his residence and was arrested and convicted of violating the order.
- Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?
- No. The Executive Order did not show racial prejudice but rather responded to the strategic imperative of keeping the U.S. and particularly the West Coast secure.
First time the Court created a separate standard of review for a law utilizing a suspect classification, stating that laws which discriminate on the basis of race “are immediately suspect” and must be subjected to “the most rigid scrutiny.”
Brown v. Board of Ed II (1955)
- African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
- Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
