Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Civil Liberties Court Cases - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Weeks v. US: Police entered the home of Weeks and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. This was done without a search warrant. Weeks took action against the police and petitioned for the return of his private possessions. The court held that the seizure of items from Weeks' residence directly violated his constitutional rights.
      - New Jersey v. T.L.O: TLO was a highschool student and was searched for suspensions of cigarettes. They discover a small amount of maijuana and a list containing the marks of students who owed TLO money. They found her guilty and sentenced her to probation for one year. On appeal the superior court of New Jersey, Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress evidence. The court held that the fourth amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not limited solely to the actions of law enforcement personnel. It also applies to the conduct of public school officials.
        
        US v. Leon: Leon was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous informant's tip. The police applied to a judge for a search warrant of leons home based on the evidence from their surveillance. They found large quantities of illegal drugs. Though the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at leons trial.The fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not be applied so as to bar the use in the prosecution case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid.
        
        Wolf v. Colorado: Wolf, Charles Fulton, and Betty Fulton were charged with conspiracy to perform abortion. At trial, Wolf objected to evidence material and admissible as to his co-defendants would be inadmissible if he were tried separately. Court held up all three conventions in which evidence was inadmissible in a prosecution for violation of a federal law in federal court. The fourteenth amendment did not subject criminal justice in the states to specific limitations and that illegally obtained evidence did not have to be excluded from trials in all cases.
        
        Vernonia school district v. Acton: High school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports related injury.District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes. James Acton was denied participation in his school football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testing. A public school does not violate the fourth amendment when it chooses to randomly test children participating in its athletic programs for controlled substances.
        
        Board of Edu v Earls: Drug testing policy in the Oklahoma school district requires all middle school and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate. Two parents brought suit, alleging that the policy violates the fourth amendment. The Tecumseh, OK school districts policy requiring all students participating in extracurricular activities to consent to random drug testing did not violate the fourth amendment and was constitutional.
        
        Florida v. Bostick: officers regularly boarded buses during stops to ask passengers for permission to search their luggage. Bostick filed a motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained, but the trial court denied the motion. The court that in the absence of intimidation or harassment, Bostick could have refused the search request
        
        1 more item...
- - - - Raich v. Gonzalez: In 1996 CA voters passed the compassionate use act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. CA law conflicted with the federal controlled substances act, which banned possession of marijuana. After the drug enforcement administration seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient's home, a group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and US attorney General John Ashbcroft in federal district court. The US Supreme Court ruled that congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if a state law allows for its use for medicinal purposes.
      - Ashcraft v Tennessee: Tennessee valley authority was a gov. corporation established as part of the New Del to improve the economy of the state. Shareholders in a private Tennessee power company sued to prevent the TVA from acquiring over halves of the ocmpanys’ property and equipment.The court concludes that, if the defendant Ashcraft made a confession, if was not voluntary, but compelled, and that his conviction, resting upon the alleged confession, must be set aside as in violation of the federal constitution.
        
        Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: Hamdi, an American citizen, was detained by the US military in afghanistan. He was accused of fighting for the Taliban against the US. Hamdi's father filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus naming himself as Hamdi detention declared unconstitutional. He argued that the gov. had violated Hamdi 5th amendment right to due process by holding him indefinitely and not giving him access to an attorney or a trial. Court ruled that even people detained as enemy combatants have the constitutional right to challenge their detention before a neutral decision maker.
        
        Griswold v. Connecticut: Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or other instrument in furthering contraception. Buxton opened a birth control clinic with Griswold who was the head of planned parenthood in connecticut. They were arrested and convicted of violating the law. Court ruled that the constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception.
- - - - Nix v. Williams: Williams was arrested for the murder of a 10 year old girl. Williams made a statement to the police without an attorney present. The defendant's Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest. The evidence that would inevitably have been discovered by law enforcement through legal means is admissible is what the court ruled.
        
        Duncan v. Louisiana: Duncan a black teenager in LA, was found guilty of assaulting a white youth by allegedly slapping him on the elbow. Duncan was sentenced to 60 days in prison and fined one hundred and fifty dollars. Duncans request for a jury trial was denied. The court ruled that the sixth amendment guarantee of trial by jury in criminal cases was “fundamental to the American scheme of justice,” and that the states were obligated under the fourteenth amendment to provide such trials.
        
        Escobedo v. Illinois: Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. The police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder. Escobedo appealed the affirmation of his conviction of murder by the supreme court of illinois.This court case established that criminal suspects have a right to counsel not just at trial but during police interrogations.
- - - - Roper v. Simmons: Standards of decency have evolved so that executing juvenile offenders who committed while younger than 18 is “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the eighth amendment.The court ruled that the eighth and fourteenth amendments forbid the execution of offenders who were younger than age 18 when the crime occurred.
        
        Furman v. Georgia: Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He tried to run but the gun went off when he tripped. He then killed the resident of the home. Convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The Furman decision caused all death sentences pending at the time to be reduced to life imprisonment.
        
        Katz v. US: Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to outside of a public phone booth. On appeal, Katz challenged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. 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.
        
        Penry v. Johnson: Penry has been sentenced to death in violation of the eighth amendment after finding that Texas special issues questions did not permit the jury to consider mitigating evidence involving his mental retardation. He was found guilty again of capital murder. The defense again put on extensive evidence regarding Penry evidence regarding penrys mental impairments. The Texas court of criminal appeals rejected penrhys claims that the admission of language from psychiatric evaluation violated his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination.The execution of persons who are mentally retarded is unconstitutional. This functionally prevented Penry from receiving the death penalty, and he would later be resentenced to life imprisonment.