THE CONSTITUTION/ STATUTES

THE CONSTITUTIONThe U.S. Constitution has two functions:

1. Create a system of government Constitution established a federal form of

government with checks and balances among three branches:

2. Establish individual rights in relation to the government

This is accomplished by the Bill of Rights

2

3 BRANCHES – COMPLETELY SEPARATED – CHECKS AND BALANCES

Legislative branch: Article I

Executive branch: Article II

Judiciary: Article III

3

SECTION 5

– SCT

CASES –

COMMERCE CLA

USE

ARTICLE I SECTION 8- COMMERCE CLAUSE

“The Congress shall have power to regulate interstate commerce . . . among the several states”

States cannot establish laws and regulations that impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce

5

BIBB V. NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC.,

Illinois enacted a statute requiring curved mud guards.

Arkansas enacted a statute requiring straight mud guards.

The plaintiffs were trucking companies who drove through Illinois and would have to use one form of mudflap equipment while in Illinois, but other mudflap equipment while in other states.

6

BIBB V. NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC.,To find the statute unconstitutional, the

Court balanced the benefit of the regulation to the state (in the form of increased safety) against the burden on interstate commerce arising from out of state truck drivers having to stop at the Illinois border and change mudguards.

Because the benefit to Illinois was small and the burden on interstate commerce large, the Court held that the law placed a unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.

7

TREAD ACT

The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (or TREAD) Act is a United States federal law enacted in the fall of 2000. This law intends to increase consumer safety through mandates assigned to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). It was drafted in response to fatalities related to Ford Explorers fitted with Firestone tires

The Act mandated the use of a suitable tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) technology in all light motor vehicles (under 10,000 pounds), to help alert drivers of severe under-inflation events. This act affects all light motor vehicles sold after September 1, 2007.

8

COMMERCE CLAUSE CASE- GONZALES V. RAICH

The Controlled Substances Act v. California Compassion

Can the federal government criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

9

Issue:

Does the Federal Government have the right to enforce a law banning medical marijuana use under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution which is in conflict with California law?

10

California argument - The marijuana plants were intended for each woman’s use only. Because they were only growing for themselves, the marijuana could not have an effect on interstate commerce.

Federal government believes that the users of medical marijuana - buying it on the street or growing it - will have an impact on interstate commerce.

11

COLORADO LEGALIZES POT

Washington and Colorado laws directly conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act that bars marijuana consumption in any form.

The federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 puts marijuana in the category of Schedule I drugs, along with heroin and LSD. Its use is not permitted for medical or any reasons, at least not in the federal statute.

12

UPDATE

Attorney General states that Federal Government will not seek to pre-empt those states' laws.

Marijuana will remain illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Therefore you cannot buy it in Colorado and then cross state lines with it.

13

COMMERCE CLAUSE – CONGRESS CANNOT INTERFERE WITH PURELY STATE ACTIVITIES

In United States v. Lopez (1995), Congress enacted the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA) prohibiting the possession of firearms in school zones. Lopez brought a loaded handgun to school and was charged under the Act.

Commerce Clause: The Supreme Court held that the commerce clause only grants Congress the ability to regulate those activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

The Act was held to unconstitutional for exceeding the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.

14

ARTICLE III- JUDICIAL BRANCH

SECTION. 1. US Supreme Court

HOW MANY JUSTICES ARE ON THE SUPREME COURT

How long?

15

ARTICLE IV – FULL FAITH AND CREDIT

SECTION. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

16

FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE

If you have a decision by a court in one state, other court in another state will honor it.

17

ARTICLE VI – SUPREMACY CLAUSE

The Supremacy Clause Article VI of the Constitution

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the Land;

What does this mean?

Who wins between state and federal laws

federal law, state laws and Constitution

18

SECTION 2

– BUSIN

ESS

AND THE B

ILL O

F RIG

HTS

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

First 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution are called the Bill of Rights.

All apply to persons and most apply to business entities as well.

Protections against the government

20

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

21

1ST

AMENDMENT

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Amendment I

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

23

HANK WILLIAMS

ESPN said on Thursday that it was its decision to end its long association with the singer, but Williams disputed that notion on his Web site: “After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made

my decision. By pulling my opening Oct. 3, you (ESPN) stepped on the toes of the First Amendment freedom of speech.

24

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Certain types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment:

slander,fighting words (threats) Pornography/obsenity.

25

EXAMPLE An angry individual unleashes a torrent of profanity upon a

police officer. The officer tries to remain calm and ignore the enraged individual. But the profanity does not stop with one curse word, and the officer arrests the person for disorderly conduct or breach of the peace.

The individual contends that the officer violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The individual asserts he has the right to criticize government officials — one of the central rights the First Amendment is designed to protect.

The government counters that the individual has no First Amendment protection because he has uttered “fighting words” — an unprotected category of speech.

26

FIGHTING WORDS – WHAT ARE THEY?

They cannot be used to further terrorism.

We cannot incite panic (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).

27

28

CHRIS BROWN

A neighborhood group said the grimacing, sharp-toothed, red-eyed goblins painted along a retaining wall have been scaring children, and is an eyesore to boot, according to the Los Angeles Times .

“There are lots of babies, lots of children, and they’re literally frightened. It’s like devils on the wall — big scary eyes and big scary teeth, and just the whole vibe is not what we’re used to.”

L.A. city code officials cited the singer $376 for unpermitted and excessive signage.

29

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Corporate Political Speech - $ to political candidates

Political speech by corporations is protected by the First Amendment.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend freely on candidates

30

1ST AMENDMENT -FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Government may not pass a law that favors one religious sect or group over another. Conflicts: “In God We Trust” Prayers at schoolTen Commandments displays on government property.

.

31

FIRST AMENDMENT – RELIGION, FREE SPEECH

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

32

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Afforded highest protection by courts.

Symbolic Speech. “Flag Burning in Johnson v. Texas.”

33

SYMBOLIC SPEECH

Question: On November 22, 2012 Michael Elli received a ticket for flashing his lights to warn fellow drivers of a speed trap.

Is this protected?

34

A federal judge in St. Louis ruled Monday that a driver flashing their lights to warn other drivers of an impending speed trap is protected free speech.

Judge Henry Autrey of St. Louis ruled a driver has the right to flash their lights under the First Amendment. Autrey issued an injunction to stop Ellisville Police from enforcing the policy.

"If you're at the gas station on the corner and someone says 'Hey be careful over there, there's a speed trap,' that's protected speech. You can't be ticketed for that. This is no different."

35

Video = snyder

36

SNYDER V. PHELPSSnyder filed a diversity action against Phelps.

The court – Westboro were entitled to First Amendment protection because those statements were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric.

Held: The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case on matters of public.

37

UPDATE – WESTBORO AUGUST 2012

NEW LAW ON MILITARY FUNERALS: The restrictions -- protesters must be at least 300

feet from military funerals from two hours before they start until two hours after they end

The "The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012“

38

Westboro

The Florida Senate approved legislation Wednesday to expand restrictions on protesters like the Westboro Baptist Church, the Associated Press reported.

Florida House Bill 15, known as the "Funeral Buffer" bill, is largely a response to military funeral protests held by groups like Westboro. Florida already has laws restricting groups from protesting military funerals or burial services, but the "Funeral Buffer" bill would expand protections to civilian services. The measure prohibits picketing within 500 feet of the funeral site, and bans protests one hour before and after the service.

Having passed both the state House and Senate, the bill now heads to Gov. Rick Scott (R).

Other states have taken similar measures to prevent groups from staging protests near funeral sites. A St. Louis suburb passed an ordinance earlier this month prohibiting such protests. North Carolina passed the "Respect Our Fallen Heroes" bill in February, approving similar funeral protest restrictions.

Westboro Baptist Church, infamous for its anti-gay picketing, has been the most visible group conducting the funeral protests.

4TH

AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT IV – SEARCH AND SEIZURESThe right of the people to be secure against

1. Need warrant

2. Based on PC –

Some exceptions to warrant:

EXCEPTIONS: liquor, gun, strip mining., spoiled or contaminated food, Border searches allowed search on computers.

Homeland Security Laws - exceptions.

41

Warrantless searches and seizures are presumed to be unconstitutional

The Supreme Court has recognized that exigent circumstances may justify a warrantless search.

(i.e. an emergency situation excusing the warrantrequirement which include “hot pursuit” of a

fleeingsuspect, the need to render emergency assistance

to aninjured individual and the imminent destruction ofevidence

42

HOW ABOUT TAKING BLOOD – VIOLATION?

Missouri v. McNeely (Warrantless drawing of blood in DWI) (2013)

In a 5-4 ruling, . The case involved a suspected drunk driver who refused to take a breath test or blood test; the patrolman took him to a hospital, and without getting a warrant, ordered hospital technicians to draw blood from the handcuffed suspect.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the fact that alcohol in the bloodstream dissipates quickly, it does not constitute an exigency

Therefore a warrant is required to take blood

43

TENNESSEE LAW

Why can Tn police conduct a breathalyzer without a warrant and not violate search and seizure law.

44

TCA 55-10-406 (a) (1) Any person who drives a motor vehicle in this state is deemed to have given consent to a test or tests for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of that person's blood, a test or tests for the purpose of determining the drug content of such person's blood, or both such tests.

However, no such test or tests may be administered pursuant to this section, unless conducted at the direction of a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe such person was driving while under the influence of alcohol, a drug …

45

V. DNAMaryland v. King (Taking an arrestee’s DNA) (2013)

In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court found police do not violate the Fourth Amendment by taking DNA samples from all people arrested in connection with serious crimes and depositing them in a national DNA database.

"Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's five-justice majority. The ruling backed a Maryland law allowing DNA swabbing of people arrested for serious crimes.

46

47

Mapp v. Ohio-

4th Amendment – SEARCH AND SEIZURE

48

US v. Jones

The Supreme Court justices voted unanimously that this violated the Fourth Amendment, though they were split on the reasoning. The majority held that by installing the GPS device on the defendants car the police had committed a trespass on private property.

4th Amendment – SEARCH AND SEIZURE

49

NEW - The Supreme Court will hear two cases in which criminal defendants were convicted on evidence obtained by warrantless searches of their cellphones.

The SCT ruled 40 years ago that police don't need a search warrant to look through anything a person is carrying when arrested.

But should this ruling still apply to advanced smartphones.

50

In a decision handed down June 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that police must obtain a search warrant before searching the contents of cellphones belonging to people being held in custody.

The ruling in U.S. v. Wurie is being described as a “landmark decision” and one that makes future warrantless searches of cellphone data “unconstitutional.”

DO DRONES VIOLATE THE 4TH AMENDMENT

In California v. Ciraolo, the Court ruled that police officers who identified marijuana plants in a suspect’s backyard from a plane at an altitude of 1000 feet did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Court held that the “Fourth Amendment does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude [1000 feet] to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.

51

FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

What does it mean:

The doctrine is subject to four main

exceptions.

52

5TH

AMENDMENT

54

DOUBLE JEOPARDY = The Fifth Amendment guarantees an American individual the right to trial by Grand Jury for specific crimes, the right not to be tried and subsequently punished more than once for the same crime.

Taking the 5th - The Fifth Amendment also guarantees the individual the right to refrain from self-incrimination by “pleading the fifth” to any questions or inquiries that may give way to an additional punishment or the notion of a guilty plea.

5th Amendment

FIFTH AMENDMENT – SELF INCRIMINATION

1. Taking the 5th - only apply in criminal cases NOT civil cases

2. Only individuals are protected by the Fifth, not businesses

55

6TH

AMENDMENT

57

Right to a speedy trial – Right to confront witnesses, have an attorney

6th Amendment

58

5th and 6th Amendment- Miranda v. Arizona

Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old. After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge

However, at no time was Miranda told of his right to counsel, and he was not advised of his right to remain silent or that his statements would be used against him during the interrogation before being presented with the form on which he was asked to write out the confession he had already given orally.

At trial, when prosecutors offered Miranda's written confession as evidence, his court-appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, objected that because of these facts, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded. Moore's objection was overruled and based on this confession and other evidence, Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping

SECTION 3

– DUE

PROCESS A

ND EQUAL

PROTE

CTION

60

Equal Protection -

New Supreme Court ruling