Shared Flashcard Set


Con. Rights and Liberties 2
Undergraduate 3

Additional Law Flashcards




Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
  • CLS is denied RSO status because they do not allow gays
  • Hastings has all-comers policy which says RSOs must accept all
  • Court rules all-comers policy is constitutional
  • Accepting all members is viewpoint neutral
  • CLS can simply choose not to be RSO
  • Dissent: Violation of freedom of association if denied facilities
WV Board of Education v. Barnette
  • Law says students must say pledge and salute flag
  • Jehovah's witness says it forces his children to worship graven image
  • Court rules law unconstitutional
  • Dissent: Court's job not to decide whether law fulfills purpose but only if it is constitutional
Sherbert v. Verner
  • Compensation act says worker can only get benefits if they work when available and no work is available
  • Woman refuses to take job w/ work on saturday because of sabboth and claims workmens comp
  • Act says she turned down work so can't get it
  • Court rules she gets benefits
  • Person cannot be forced to choose between benefits and religion
  • Dissent: Was available for work
Lyng v. NW Indian Cemetary Protective Assn.
  • US forest service wants to build logging road around indian ritual grounds
  • Indians say will violate free exercise because of noise and loss of sacredness
  • Court rules religion cannot interfere w/ government's policies
  • Hurts practice but does not coerce into not practicing like Burnette and Sherbert
Employment Division v. Smith
  • Indians are fired from job w/ drug rehab after using peyote for rituals
  • Denied umemployment comp because fired for work-related misconduct and claim violation of free exercise
  • court upholds denial
  • peyote is prohibited in oregon so using it is violation and not protected
  • Dissent: religious drug use is different from recreational
Pottawatomie County v. Earls
  • School institutes policy that all students participating in extracurriculars get drug tested
  • Students claim violates 4th Amendment
  • Court rules it does not
  • School has interest in preventing drug use
  • Students in extracurriculars represent school and therefore give up some privacy
Safford v. Redding
  • Middle school girl is strip searched according to policy because of no tolerance prescription drug policy
  • Mom claims strip search violated reasonableness standard
  • Court agrees
  • There was reasonable suspicion to search but strip search was too much
  • Dissent: People can just hide things in underwear now
Indianapolis v. Edmond
  • Indianapolis creates checkpoint system for narcotics
  • 59 drug arrests
  • Motorists claim violation of 4th
  • Court agrees
  • No individualized suspicion
  • Some cases are ok like at borders and airports but not just driving
Mapp v. Ohio
  • Woman refuses to let search w/ out warrant
  • Court rules all evidence seized w/ out warrant is in violation of constitution and inadmissable
  • Creates exclusionary rule at state level
  • Dissent: Should not impose exclusionary rule on states (406)
Olmstead v. US
  • Men are caught bootlegging through wiretapping
  • Claim violation of 4th and 5th
  • Court rules not violation of either
  • No searching or seizing, just listening
  • People intend to spread their voice w/ phones and all wires cannot be protected
  • Dissent: No phones when constitution was written so must consider technology advances
  • Liberty needs guarded from gov't benefit
Katz v. US
  • Man is caught transferring wagering info from wiretapped phone booth
  • Claims violation of 4th
  • Court agrees
  • Imposed by agents w/ no warrant
  • W/ out warrant there are no limits of search
  • Page 411
  • Dissent: How can you get warrant for future conversation?
  • No idea location or nature
Terry v. Ohio
  • Cop becomes suspicious of activity and searches men
  • Men claim violation of 4th
  • Court says no
  • Experienced officer had reasonable suspicion
  • Just searched outer clothing which was reasonable in comparison to his suspicion
Chimel v. California
  • Officers have arrest warrant for man but no search warrant and search his house anyways on grounds of arrest
  • Court says unconstitutional
  • They can seize items he's holding but not search whole house
  • If arrested at work they couldn't search house so he doesn't lose that right just cause he's home
California v. Ciraolo
  • Officer observes pot plants w/ plane in navigable air space and gets search warrant based on sighting
  • Court rules allowed
  • Public airways
  • No warrant needed when visible to naked eye
Bond v. US
  • During immigration status check officer squeezes luggage and feels brick of meth
  • Court rules physical manipulation of bag was violation
  • Dissent: travel should come w/ expectation of bag being touched
  • Traveller could bring hard bag
Kyollo v. US
  • Agents use thermal scanner to check house for weed growing lights
  • Find lamps and get warrant to arrest man
  • He claims evidence should be suppressed
  • Court rules scanners were unlawful search
  • Technology advances don't mean less rights
  • Dissent: Let laws be passed about tech instead of Court regulating it
NTEU v. Von Raab
  • Drug test program for people in customs who have to carry gun or deal w/ drugs
  • Court rules constitutional
  • Drug users working w/ drugs and guns is dangerous
  • Could be bribed
  • Dissent: Drug users as likely to be bribed as anyone
US v. Drayton
  • Question of whether bus passengers must be told they can refuse search
  • Men are asked to be searched and cocaine is found
  • They claim they were not told they could deny so search is inadmissable
  • Court sides w/ men
  • Men were not told they could decline
  • Officers coerced them
Georgia v. Randolph
  • Police come to house over domestic abuse
  • Woman tells cops there's drugs in house and consents to search but husband does not
  • Cops search anyways
  • Man claims evidence is inadmissable
  • Court agrees
  • Presence of someone not consenting overrides co-tenants consent
  • Dissent: To share a house is to give authority over stuff
Brigham City v. Stewart
  • Cops respond to noise violation at party and see a man get punched through window
  • Cop enters house and arrests everyone
  • People claim there was no emergency that warranted cop entering house
  • Court rules that punch was enough because fight could have escalated
City of Ontario v. Quan
  • Cop gets pager from city
  • Keeps passing message limits so they get transcript of messages from company
  • Quon is found to be sexting and punished
  • Says violation of 4th
  • Court says search was reasonable
  • Policy said there would be no expectation of privacy
  • Work related purpose to search
  • Scalia: Shouldn't be limited to only gov't employers
Miranda v. Arizona
  • Question of using statements during interrogation as evidence
  • Accused were not informed of their rights to not make statements
  • Court rules violation of 5th and 6th if accused weren't made aware of rights
  • White dissent: Court distrusts confessions
  • Court has sympathy for the poor and uneducated but not for those they hurt
  • Harlan dissent: No confession can be voluntary under these rules
  • Why take power from police?
Dickerson v. US
  • Law makes some statements in interrogation admissable based on whether or not they were made voluntarily
  • Man doesn't receive Miranda warnings but they admit statements based on this law
  • Court rules Miranda rights were violated
  • Miranda is Constitutional decision so changing it is a violation
  • Dissent: Judiciary is legislating
Maryland v. Shatzer
  • Shatzer is interrogated about abusing his son but claims Miranda rights
  • Interviewed three years later but claims statements can't be used because he still had Miranda rights
  • Court rules there was break of two weeks in Miranda custody so they were waived
Nix v. Williams
  • Man kills girl and hides body
  • During ride to court, cop asks man to think about telling them where body is which he does
  • Body is used as evidence
  • Statements made in car made inadmissable and question becomes whether body would have been found without statements
  • Court says it would and that inevitable discovery should be added to exclusionary rule
  • Dissent: Need a heightened burden to inevitable discovery
Powell v. Alabama
  • Blacks tried for the rape of two girls and in a one day trial are sentenced to death with sketchy counsel
  • Men prove they could have gotten better lawyers if given more time
  • Court overturns convictions
  • Counsel must be provided in capital case and that right was violated
Gideon v. Wainwright
  • Man is tried and denied counsel in a capital trial
  • Convicted but claims habeus corpus because held without a fair trial
  • Court agrees
  • Right to counsel is fundamental right
Coy v. Iowa
  • Coy arrested for sexual assault of two 13 year old girls
  • A screen is placed during testimony so they can't see him
  • He claims he has a right to confront witnesses in the 6th and the screen will presume guilt
  • Court rules mans rights were violated
  • Confrontation clause was violated and circumstances do not warrant waiving it
  • Is about accuser seeing defendent as well as defendent seeing accuser
  • Dissent: Could overwhelm children psychologically
Davis v. Washington
  • Question of whether statements made during 911 calls count as testimony because there is no confrontation
Gregg v. Georgia
  • After Georgia death penalty is stricken down in Furman, Georgia rewrites it and convicts Gregg to death
  • Court rules new law constitutional
  • Serves as retribution and deterrance
  • Society has accepted death penalty - willingness of juries
  • Juries must retain discretion
  • Brennan dissent: Death is excessive
  • Marshall dissent: People need to be more informed if they are willing to inflict death penalty
Woodson v. North Carolina
  • NC makes death penalty mandatory for first-degree murder
  • Court rules violation of 8th and 14th
  • Violates contemporary standards
  • Doesn't allow for consideration of different aspects of each murder
  • Juries should get discretion and this takes it away
Roberts v. Louisiana
Stanford v. Kentucky
  • Two minors are tried and sentenced to death penalty
  • Court rules constitutional
  • Many minors have been executed and no sign of societal trend saying otherwise
  • Both premeditated
  • Dissent: Serves neither retribution or deterrance for minors
Atkins v. Virginia
  • Moderately retarded guy kills someone and question is whether he can get death penalty
  • Court rules he cannot
Parents Involved v. Seattle School District
  • Students are assigned to public schools based on race to get more diversity
  • Parents argue violation of Equal Protection
  • Court rules cannot assign students just to get racial balance
  • Fight over strict scrutiny
  • Roberts: Use of race is wrong and we need to stop discrimination by stopping discriminating
Roper v. Simmons
  • 17 year old murders woman and brags about it later
  • Court rules 17 year olds can't be executed
  • Evolving standards of decency
  • Juviniles lack maturity and understanding
  • No national concensus for executing minors
  • Dissent: Consensus means nothing if less than 50% required
  • Closes door for jury to make decision
Kennedy v. Louisiana
  • Question of whether death penalty can be given for crime that does not cause death
  • Man rapes eight year old daughter and sentenced to death
  • Court rules unconstitutional
  • Death penalty for rape only accepted by 6 states and therefore no concensus
  • Crimes do not compare to murder
  • Dissent: State laws don't show national concensus
  • 5 states can mean beginning of trend, not lack of acceptance
Harmelin v. Michigan
  • Man caught w/ cocaine and sentenced to life w/ no parole
  • Claims disproportionate to crime and that punishment was statutorily required
  • Court rules not disproportionate and sentence is ok
  • Prison cannot be cruel and unusual
  • Sentence doesn't have to be proportionate, just can't be grossly disproportionate
  • Dissent: Death penalty is always disproportionate
Ewing v. California
  • Man commits series of felonies and state law is three strikes you're out
  • Claims punishment is disproportionate to crime
  • Court rules law is fine
  • Not grossly disproportionate and serves public safety
Regents of Cal. v. Bakke
  • Man applies to Cal med school and is denied even though a bunch of miniorities w/ lower scores get in through special admission program
  • Claims Equal Protection was violated
  • Court rules special admissions program is violation
  • Quota system
  • Strict scrutiny/least intrusive means of classifying must be used
  • Can discriminate if these guidelines followed
  • Has to be compelling interest to discriminate
Grutter v. Bollinger
  • Girl denied admission to U of M law school
  • Minorities w/ lower scores get in
  • Court rules court has interest in diverse student body for discussion and learning
  • Affirmative action necessary but may be changed later
  • Dissent: too liberal use of race
  • Learn to get along w/ races in kindergarten, not law school
  • Thomas: Whites know blacks are only there because of race
  • Will be illegal later but is also illegal now
Gratz v. Bollinger
  • Students denied admission to U of M
  • Minorities get 20 points automatically on point scale to get in
  • Court rules too mechanistic use of race
  • Dissent: 20 points rule still allows for competition
US v. Virginia
  • VMI is male-only public school
  • Court rules violation
  • No justification for sex-based admissions
  • VWIL doesn't have same opporturnities
  • Dissent: Sex should be intermediate scrutiny and court is using strict
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
  • Couple is told they can build bigger house on beach only if they provide public access to beach because bigger house will block view
  • Couple refuses to give public access
  • Does forcing them to give public access constitute taking?
  • Court rules it does
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
  • Man buys land to build houses on beach
  • Two years later, Act prevents him from building houses on that land
  • Claims land lost value and deserves compensation
  • Court agrees
  • "Regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land"
  • Dissent: If regulating for community benefit then it should not be taking
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe RPA
  • TRPA inposes 32 month moratorium on development
  • Land owners claim it's a taking
  • Court rules Lucas doesn't apply because it's temporary
  • Regulation and takings are different
  • State legislators can determine whether delay is too long
  • Dissent: Lucas still applies because no economic benefit
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
  • Hawaii creates law that land leasers can take land from owner because 72 people own all private land in Hawaii
  • Court rules gov't can take land if owner gets fair compensation
  • Land oligopoly is detriment and therefore there is public purpose
Kelo v. City of New London
  • Pfizer wants to build huge facility in New London but people live on the land they want
  • City wants facility so invokes taking clause to take land from people
  • People claim it's not public use
  • Court rules taking was constitutional
  • Same as Hawaii
  • Dissent: Opens door for gov't to give private property to anyone they think will be more productive
  • Public use might as well be removed after this
  • Poor are the ones that suffer
Supporting users have an ad free experience!