LGST 101 Const/Crim Law Flashcards
Due Process Clause
Everyone gets due process of the law to protect their rights
Supremacy Clause
US Constitution and federal law preempt conflicting state legislation.
If federal and state laws not exactly contradictory but in same field, federal reigns supreme
Avoidance of abrogation of state sovereignty cannon
Still need to remember and pay attention to state sovereignty and state rights, but federal law preempts
Catnip Example:
Say state law regulates catnips marketing but federal law says no such regulation
Federal action in the field preempts, no regulations allowed
Marbury v. Madison
Court finds Judiciary Act of 1789 to be in conflict with Constitution, rules that Constitution overrules such contradictory laws. As such, Court gains power of Judiciary Review, can declare a law unconstitutional
Taking
Taking clause of 5th Amend says government can’t take private property without just compensation and public use (eminent domain–right of government to turn private to public with just comp and public use)
How to decide if it is a taking
- Basis: Needs to be used for public use for it to be a taking
- Nature (Physical or regulatory taking–see next two cards)
Physical Taking
When government actually physically takes a property. Almost always a taking as long as it is used for public purpose and there is just compensation.
Consider per se (physical or total regulatory) v. debatable (not as obvious)
Regulatory Taking
A taking may occur if the government engages in an activity that destroys use of private property without physically seizing it
Consider:
Economic impact (if lose all economic benefits of the property, then more likely to be a taking)
Character of action (it is a taking when regulation causes loss of all economically beneficial/productive uses of the land, unless regulation is justified by background principles of property law/nuisance law)
–> Depends on the extent of the regulation. If the regulation goes too far, it is a taking.
Lastly, consider regulations limiting harmful use of a property are not takings (Noxious use test: regulation adopted under police power to protect public health, safety, or welfare is not a taking even if it reduces the value of the property–as such, zoning and landmarks are allowed)
US v. Causby
Federal government built a military airfield close to a house, causing planes to fly very low and cause disruption on the farm, resulting in chicken not being able to be raised on the farm. It is a taking because it deprived owner’s the use and enjoyment of their land and lowered the property value.
Penn Central v. NYC
Landmark restrictions do not constitute a taking, and the building owner is not entitled to just compensation
4th Amend
Need probable cause for a warrant and a warrant to search and/or arrest
Requirements for a Warrant
- Probable cause–>
Probable cause for arrest: reasonable basis for believing a crime may have been committed
Probable cause for search: reasonable basis for believing evidence of a crime is present in the place to be searched - Particular–warrant given for a particular, not general, thing
- Warrant must be issued by natural and detached magistrate (judge)
Exclusionary rule
Evidence gained from searches that violate the 4th Amendment can’t be used in trial
See 4th Amend Flow Chart
ok, note that for a warrant to be property executed need no unreasonable delay, after announcement unless officers/evidence would be endangered, person/place searched within scope of warrant
Bond v. US
A law enforcement officer’s searching of a bag on a bus violates the 4th Amendment as the passenger has a privacy interest in his bag and he is entitled to the privacy.
Dow v. US
The government does not need a warrant to conduct aerial searches of outdoor business facilities, as an outdoor area is not subject to strict protection from observation
Kyllo v. US
Using a thermal-imaging device without a search warrant to detect relative amounts of heat to show that a home is growing marijuana violates the 4th Amendment
Falvo v. Owasso
Peer grading violates FERPA, as grades are education records, which are meant to be private under FERPA
Smythe v. Pillsbury
Smythe is allowed to be fired over improper use of email on the company’s server, as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an email
McLain v. Boise and United Diversified Service:
McLain strains his back, and Boise needs to trespass onto McLain’s home to get surveillance footage to see the extent of McLain’s injury. Boise does this without telling McLain However, Boise barely trespasses, and the footage could have been taken from the public. As such, there is no trespass here
Exceptions to Warrant Requirement
- Border
- Automobile (more leeway because cars can get away fast. Probable cause, search car without warrant to find something quickly)
- Consent (voluntary, not by coercion or trick)
- Hot pursuit (just committed a crime and have probable cause, then can go into the home if the presumed criminal enters the home)
- Plain view (original search must be lawful–lawful situation allowing the cop to be in a situation where incriminating thing is in plain view)
- Incident to arrest (arrest must be lawful, search in the same time, and limited to wingspan)
- Exigency (Urgent need or demand, extenuating circumstances)
- Stop and frisk (Reasonable suspicion and possibility the person is armed. Officer must identify self as officer, only if queries don’t dispel suspicion can you search. And the search is limited to outer clothes to find weapons)
Washington v. Chrisman
When an officer was allowed to go into a dorm room and saw drugs out in the open, Chrisman had no reasonable expectation of privacy. The plain view exception allowed for the law enforcement officers to seize clearly incriminating evidence (since the officer had a right to be in the dorm to begin with)
14th Amendment and Corporations
14th Amend gives corporations the rights of persons
What is necessary for it to be a crime
Mens rea (intent) and actus reus (bad man) are necessary As well as innocent until proven guilty and beyond reasonable doubt (not 51% but around 95%)
Corporate criminal liability rules
Joint and several liability–> Both cooperation and culpable individual will potentially be held liable)
Vicarious liability–> Liability given to a 3rd party who didn’t cause the harm but had a particular legal relationship to the harm. Ex: Pizza company liable if you have to drive over speed limit to deliver pizza in 2 min
NY Cert and Hudson River RR v. US
Corporations need to be held criminally liable to control business in interstate commerce
State v. Knutson
Knutson Incorporated was constructing a sewer line when a worker died. Corporations can be prosecuted and held criminally liable under an act that reads “Whoever causes a death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a vehicle is guilty of a Class E felony.”
