BILL OF RIGHTS PROTECTIONS CHAPTER 14 AMENDMENTS 2 - 10 Slide 2
THE IMPORTANCE OF DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED TO THE STATES BY THE 14 TH
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS = THE GOVT. MUST APPLY THE LAW FAIRLY AND
FOLLOW A SET PROCEDURE IN CARRYING IT OUT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS =
CONSIDERATION AND INTERPRETATION OF PERSONS, CIRCUMSTANCES, ETC. IN
DECIDING WHETHER SOMETHING IS REASONABLE AND FAIR IN ITS
APPLICATION MOST SUPREME COURT OPINIONS FALL UNDER SUBSTANTIVE DUE
PROCESS GITLOW V. NEW YORK (1925) APPLIES THE BILL OF RIGHTS
(SELECTIVELY) TO THE STATES POLICE POWER THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVT.
TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE
IS LIMITED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE Slide 3 2 ND AMENDMENT RIGHT
TO BEAR ARMS 2 ND AMENDMENT A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING
NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED PRIOR TO 2007 THE
SUPREME COURT WOULD ONLY EQUATE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AS IT WAS IN
RELATION TO A WELL REGULATED MILITIA PARKER V. THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA (1988) FIRST TIME THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT PRIVATE
CITIZENS HAD THE RIGHT TO OWN WEAPONS D.C. V. HELLER (2007)
VIOLATED THE 2 ND AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE LAW BANNED AN ENTIRE GROUP
OF WEAPONS THAT COULD BE USED FOR HOME DEFENSE - HOWEVER IT DID
HOLD THAT THERE COULD BE REGULATIONS IMPOSED CONCEALED WEAPONS
PROHIBITIONS, LIMITS ON THE RIGHTS OF FELONS AND THE MENTALLY ILL,
LAWS FORBIDDING THE CARRYING OF WEAPONS IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS, LAWS
IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON COMMERCIAL SALES, AND PROHIBITIONS ON THE
CARRYING OF DANGEROUS AND UNUSUAL WEAPONS Slide 4 4 TH AMENDMENT NO
ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN
THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES POLICE MUST FOLLOW SPECIFIC RULES FOR
CARRYING OUT SEARCHES: SEARCH WARRANT MUST SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE
EXCLUSIONARY RULE APPLIES TO ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED THAT VIOLATES
THE RIGHT TO BE SECURE MAPP V. OHIO (1961) 4 TH AMENDMENT
INCORPORATED ESTABLISHED THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE KATZ V. U.S. (1967)
SEARCH WARRANTS REQUIRED FOR WIRETAPS TERRY V. OHIO (1968) STOP AND
FRISK SEARCHES ARE VALID AS LONG AS THERE IS REASONABLE SUSPICION
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES PERMITTED WHEN: SEARCH IS IN AN OPEN FIELD,
HOT PURSUITS, CONSENT IS GIVEN (BY ANYONE IN THE RESIDENCE),
RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN VIEWED BY ANOTHER PARTY, DRUG-SNIFFING DOGS,
EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, IF SOMEONE IS ARRESTED, GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION
Slide 5 5 TH AMENDMENT PROTECTION DURING PROSECUTION FEDERAL DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE GRAND JURY PROTECTION NO INDICTMENT WITHOUT ONE
DOUBLE JEOPARDY LIFE AND LIMB NOT PUT IN JEOPARDY TWICE FOR SAME
CRIME SELF-INCRIMINATION DEFENDANT TESTIFYING IN COURT MIRANDA V.
ARIZONA (1966) THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT EMINENT DOMAIN - PRIVATE
PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION Slide 6 6 TH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS DURING TRIAL SPEEDY
TRIAL LIMIT THE LONG DELAY THAT IMPAIRS THE ABILITY TO DEFEND
ONESELF PUBLIC TRIAL BELONGING TO THE DEFENDANT COVERS ALL
PROCEEDINGS PUBLIC HAS ACCESS TO THE TRIAL RESTRAINS ABUSE OF
JUDICIAL POWER, KEEPS WITNESSES MORE TRUSTWORTHY, CAUSES MORE
MATERIAL WITNESSES TO COME FORWARD JURY TRIAL PREVENTS OPPRESSION
BY THE GOVERNMENT MUST COME FROM A CROSS-SECTION OF SOCIETY NATURE
AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION CANT BE CONVICTED OF A CRIME THEY WERE
NEVER INDICTED FOR U.S. V. CRUIKSHANK (1876) CHARGES MUST BE
SPECIFIC IN NATURE DELINEATING WHICH PART OF THE PENAL CODE HAS
BEEN VIOLATED Slide 7 6 TH AMENDMENT CONT. CONFRONTATION OF
WITNESSES DEFENDANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THEIR TRIAL CAN BE WAIVED OR
FORFEITED ALLOWS FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESSES OBTAINING
FAVORABLE WITNESSES DEFENDANT CAN TESTIFY ON OWN BEHALF SUBPOENAING
OF WITNESSES COUNSEL HAVING THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE
POWELL V. ALABAMA (1932) DEFENDANTS WERE ILLITERATE NEEDED COUNSEL
BETTS V. BRADY (1933) DEATH PENALTY CASE GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT
(1963) FELONY CONVICTION Slide 8 8 TH AMENDMENT FINES/BAIL &
CRUEL/UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT EXCESSIVE FINES THE PENALTY MUST FIT THE
CRIME COMMITTED CAN AMOUNT TO DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW EXCESSIVE BAIL CAN NOT EXCEED THE DEFENDANTS ABILITY
TO PAY, YET MUST BE HIGH ENOUGH TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE IN COURT
FLIGHT RISK QUESTION CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CRUEL INHUMANE
CAUSES PAIN AND AGONY RATHER THAN JUST BE THE PENALTY FOR THE CRIME
COMMITTED UNUSUAL BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NORMAL PRACTICE
WILKERSON V. UTAH (1879) HANGING V. FIRING SQUAD FURMAN V. GEORGIA
(1972) CANT GIVE DEATH PENALTY IN AN ARBITRARY FASHION ROBINSON V.
CALIFORNIA (1962) ALTERNATE PENALTY FOR DRUG ADDICTS RATHER THAN
PRISON CONFINEMENT Slide 9 9 TH AMENDMENT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
PRESUMPTION OF LIBERTY PEOPLE ARE FREE TO ACT IN ANY WAY THAT DOES
NOT VIOLATE COMMON-LAW RIGHTS OF OTHERS GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
(1965) MARRIED COUPLES AND CONTRACEPTION ZONES OF PRIVACY ROE V.
WADE (1973) ESTABLISHED A WOMANS RIGHT TO ABORTION IN THE FIRST
TRIMESTER MAIN BASIS FOR THE DECISIONS RESTED MORE ON THE 14 TH
AMENDMENT RATHER THAN THE 9 TH EMPHASIS TOWARD THE DUE PROCESS OF
THE LAW BEING DENIED Slide 10 10 TH AMENDMENT FEDERAL V. STATES THE
POWER GRAB ANY POWER NOT FORBIDDEN TO THE STATES NOR DELEGATED TO
THE FEDERAL GOVT. IS RESERVED FOR THE STATES POLICE POWER IS
RESERVED FOR THE STATES MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND (1819) UPHELD THE
SUPREMACY OF THE FEDERAL OVER THE STATE GOVTS. SCHECHTER POULTRY
CORP. V. U.S. (1935) STRUCK DOWN PART OF THE NEW DEAL CITING THAT
THE FEDERAL GOVT WAS WIELDING POWER THAT RIGHTFULLY BELONGED TO THE
STATES WITH MINIMUM WAGES AND FAIR LABOR CODES THERE ARE CONSTANT
BATTLES BETWEEN THE TWO ENTITIES OVER POWER
