bill of rights amendments 2-10

8/3/2019 Bill of Rights Amendments 2-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bill-of-rights-amendments-2-10 1/60

THE SECOND

AMENDMENT

³The right of the people to keep and bear arms´



PRESENT DAY

The Second Amendmenthas been interpreted to

meanthe right of INDIVIDUALS to own guns



Due to the current day climate

of crime and violence

laws have been proposed restricting:

1. the availability of guns

2. the use of guns

3. the use of certain kinds of weapons



This has resulted in a

national debate:Should registration and a waiting period be

required for a person to own recreational

guns?

Should certain types of arms such as assault

weapons be banned?



NATIONAL FIREARMS

ACT OF 1934

provided for: 1)taxation and 2) registration of

automatic weapons and sawedoff shotguns



COURT CASE IN REGARDS TO THE

SECOND AMENDMENT

UNITED STATES V MILLER

1939

first Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme

Court

noted that the Second Amendment did NOT protect the right

of CITIZENS to own firearms that were not ordinary militia

weapons

Miller, had been charged with possession of an unregistered

sawedoff shotgun; the Court noted that it had no evidence

that such a weapon constituted ordinary militia equipment



United States v Miller

was a federal case

the regulation of arms has been a state matter

UNTIL............



BR ADY BILL

1993

named after President Reagan¶s press

secretary

Brady was injured by a handgun in the

attempted assassination of the president

took more than 10 years to obtain

congressional approval



The law

placed restriction on handgun registration,

setting up a minimum waiting period before

purchase

many states had to change their laws based

on this legislation



In 1997, a Supreme

Court decision did:

strike down the part of the law forcing local

officials to perform instant checks



The NR A

(The National Rifle Association)

lobbied AGAINST passage of the Brady Bill,

arguing that it would not stop criminals from

obtaining weapons

lobby: to urge the passage or non-passage of

a bill



THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

V

HELLER (2008)

the ONLY Supreme Court case to rule on the question of whether

the right to bear arms CONSTITUTIONALLY protects

INDIVIDUALS

challenged a Washington D.C. gun control law that banned guns in

the District and required any legal guns to be unloaded

in a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the law was unconstitutionaland that the Second Amendment protected an INDIVIDUAL¶S right

to bear arms

still questionable, since the decision only applied to Washington,

D.C. and federal laws



THE FOURTH

AMENDMENT

grants freedom from unreasonable searchesand seizures. This includes persons, houses,

papers, and effects

has come under the scrutiny of both the

federal and state governments in determininghow far then can go in obtaining evidence



WHOM

does the Fourth Amendment

protect?

³The right of the people´ -- All those who live

under the protections of the Constitution.

Does that include ³citizens´? (yes).

Does that include children under 18? (yes).

How about undocumented immigrants? (yes).



From WHAT

does the Fourth Amendment protect

those people?

³Against unreasonable searches or seizures´ by

the governmentIn determining what is an ³unreasonable´ search or

seizure, courts look to balance individual liberty

within the need to keep an ordered society.

Figuring out what is reasonable or unreasonable isone of the central challenges of the Fourth

Amendment.



What about justified intrusions

by the government?

The second part of the Fourth Amendment

talks about ³no warrants shall issue but upon

probable cause.´ Probable cause=reason to

suspect you



What is a warrant?

a formal document signed by a judge thatallows police to search or arrest you

Warrants allow law enforcement officers who

have reason to suspect you (probable cause)

to ask a judge for permission to interfere withyour privacy.



Thus, if a search warrant

is supported by enoughevidence:

the government:

1. can search you

2. can search your house

3. or even arrest you



³PROB ABLE CAUSE´

again, a reasonable belief that a crime has or is being

committed; the basis for all lawful searches, seizures and

arrests.

is a key factor in determining if a search is legitimate

applies to states

is the first component of due process

due process: the principle that the government mustrespect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person

according to the law. MORE TO COME ON DUE

PROCESS



EXCEPTION

To

Probable Cause Component:

³plain view´ characteristic: allows police to

obtain evidence that is in sight of the

investigators



MAJOR ISSUES

related to the

FOURTH AMENDMENT

To what extent can police conduct a search

with a warrant and obtain evidence found toprosecute an individual?

What methods can law officials use to obtain

evidence?

Can the right of privacy extend to social

issues, such as abortion?



KEY COURT CASES

RELATED TO THE FOURTH

AMENDMENT

1. Mapp v Ohio (1961): police searched Dorlee

Mapp's house with a questionable search warrant

expecting to find evidence that would implicate asuspected bomber . Instead they found pornography

and arrested Mapp for possessing lewd materials.

Based on the 4th amendment, the Court created the

"exclusionary rule" protecting a citizen's privacy bymaking anything collected by unreasonable or illegal

search and seizure to be inadmissible as evidence in

a court.



EXCLUSIONARY RULE

determined that police may obtain only thatevidence available through a legitimate search

warrant

other evidence found at the scene of the crime

is not admissible in the trial; it must beEXCLUDED



EXCEPTIONS

to the

EXCLUSIONARY RULE

1. INEVITABLE DISCOVERY: evidence is

admissible at trial if the police would haveeventually discovered the illegally obtained

evidence through the course of their

investigation anyway

2. GOOD FAITH: evidence is admissiblefrom police officers who honestly believe that

they acted in compliance with the law



(2) GRISOLD

V

CONNECTICUT

(1965)

the Court struck down a Connecticut law that

prohibited the use of contraceptives, after adoctor was arrested for distributing birth

control devices

using the privacy provision of the Fourth

Amendment, the Court stated that individualshad the right to privacy in the area of sexual

relations



(3) ROE

V

WADE(1972)

using the concept of being ³secure in their persons´ from the

Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that abortions

are constitutionally protected; it up a trimester system

first trimester: unrestricted abortions

second trimester: regulated abortions during this semester

third semester: allowed states to ban abortion unless themother¶s or baby¶s life was endangered

VERY CONTROVERSIAL AND FAMOUS CASE



(4) UNITED STATES

VLEON (1984)

the Court created the ³good faith´ exception tothe exclusionary rule

allowed the introduction of illegally obtained

evidence where police can prove that the

evidence was obtained w/out violating the coreprinciples of Mapp V Ohio (1961)



(5) PLANNED

P ARENTHOOD

V

CASEY(1992)

the Court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiringminors to wait 24 hours after receiving

parental approval before getting an abortion

as constitutional

also struck down a provision mandating thatwomen obtain ³informed spousal consent´

upheld, in principle, Roe V Wade (1972)



THE FIFTH

AMENDMENTNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a

presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except

in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in

the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for

the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life

or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal

case to be a witness against himself, nor be

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without dueprocess of law; nor shall private property be taken

for public use, without just compensation.



Due Process

refers to how and why laws are enforced.

It applies to all persons, citizen or alien, as

well as to corporations.



The Fifth Amendment

Guarantees

(1) Indictment by a Grand Jury:

Nobody can go to trial for a serious crime, except in a military

setting, without first being indicted (to bring a formal

accusation against) by a grand jury.

A grand jury listens to evidence and decides if someone

should be charged with a crime.

Thus the grand jury determines probable cause (a reasonable

belief that a crime has or is being committed), not "guilt" or

"innocence".

Unlike trial juries, grand juries can indict with only a majority.

Grand juries do not a unanimous vote.



The Fifth Amendment

and

Double Jeopardy

defendants, once acquitted on a charge, may not be

tried again for the same offense at the same

jurisdictional level

Defendants may be tried again if (1)the previous trial

ended in a mistrial or hung jury, (2)if there is evidence

of fraud in the previous trial, or (3)if the charges are not

precisely the same

the police officers who beat Rodney King, after being

acquitted on state charges, were convicted on federal

charges for the same offense.



The Fifth Amendment

and

³Pleading the fifth´

The best known clause in the Fifth

Amendment ("No person ... shall be compelledin a criminal case to be a witness against

himself") protects suspects from forced self-

incrimination.

It should not by any means be taken as a sign

of guilt



The Fifth Amendment

and

The Miranda Rule

Just because a suspect has rights doesn't mean

that a suspect knows about those rights.

Officers have often used, and sometimes still use,

a suspect's ignorance regarding his or her own

civil rights to build a case.

this all changed with Miranda v. Arizona (1966),the Supreme Court case that created the

statement officers are now required to issue upon

arrest--beginning with the words "You have the

right to remain silent..." *KEY COURT CASE*



Miranda

v

Arizona (1966)

Ernesto Miranda, mentally retarded, was accused

and convicted of rape and kidnapping

he confessed to the crime under intense

interrogation wi/out any mention by the police of

his right to obtain a lawyer or what consequences

the answers to their questions would have on the

outcome of the trial

The Supreme Court, in its landmark ruling,

established the Miranda Rights



The Miranda Rights

directed the police to inform the accused upon arrest

that he has a constitutional

³right to remain silent, any thing said can be used in

court, he has a right to consult with a lawyer at any

time during the process and that a lawyer will beprovided if the accused can not afford one´

the accused must be asked if he/she understands

these rights

since the Miranda ruling, the courts have begun to

limit some of the rights established by the following

cases



New York

vQuarles (1984)

the Court created a ³public safety´ exception

to the Miranda warnings allowing the police to

arrest an accused criminal w/out reciting the

Miranda warnings where public safety is

concerned



Hamdi

v

Rumsfeld (2004)

Background of the case: During the U.S.

invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, U.S. military

forces captured a young Yemeni national

named Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who had worked

as a driver and bodyguard for Osama bin

Laden. He was held without trial until July 2004,

at which point he was charged with "conspiracyto commit terrorism" based primarily on his

association with bin Laden. He had not been

accused of directly participating in, or

coordinating, any terrorist acts.



Hamdi v Rumsfeld

Outcome:Enemy combatants held in the United States have

due process r ights

enemy combatant: a term historically referring to

members of the armed forces of the state with

which another state is at war. In the United States

the use of the phrase "enemy combatant" may

also mean an alleged member of al Qaeda or theTaliban being held in detention by the U.S.

government as part of the war on terror



HABEAS CORPUS

refers to the right of every prisoner to challenge

the terms of his or her incarceration in court before

a judge

today, the most frequently discussed international

habeas corpus controversy is the Bush

administration's policy of imprisoning hundreds of

suspected Afghan and Iraqi terrorist associates inGuantanamo Bay and other offshore U.S. prisons

without trial or meaningful judicial review



The Fifth Amendment

and Property Rights

andthe Takings Clause:

under this clause, referred to as the takingsclause, the government can't simply claim

eminent domain (the power of the government

to take private property for public use with

payment of compensation to the owner) and

take a citizen¶s property

recent developments, however, (most notably,

Kelo v. New London (2005))have weakened

the takings clause considerably.



Key Court Cases

regarding the

Fifth Amendment

1. ESCOBEDO V ILLINOIS (1964): Danny Escobedo

requested the assistance of a lawyer after he was arrested for

the murder of his brother

The police would not grant the request even though there was

a lawyer at the police station

Escobedo made a number of incriminating statements w/out

his lawyer present, which were later used against him at his

trial.

The Supreme Court ruled Escobedo¶s due process rights of

self-incrimination and right to counsel were violated and he

was released from prison.



(2)Gideon

V

Wainright (1964)

landmark case that established that the accused has the

right to an attorney even is he/she cannot afford one

Gideon, accused of a felony in Florida, requested theassistance of a lawyer. The Florida criminal justice system

allowed free assistance only in cases that were punishable

by death.

Gideon defended himself and lost

The Supreme Court ruled that his Fifth Amendment due

process rights, made applicable by the Fourteenth Amend,

were denied



THE SIXTH

AMENDMENTIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy

the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial

jury of the state and district wherein the crime shallhave been committed, which district shall have been

previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of

the nature and cause of the accusation; to be

confronted with the witnesses against him; to have

compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in hisfavor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his

defense.



The Right to a Speedy

Trial:

is intended to prevent long-term incarceration

and detention (which amounts to a prison

sentence without a guilty verdict) without trial



The Right to a Public

Trial:

Although public trials would ordinarily seem to be a

condition that would work against the defendant, given

the likely humiliating effect, they also ensure that the

proceedings are not conducted in an underhanded way.

One question currently under debate in the court

system is whether televised trials are a good idea--dothey further protect this right, or do they just exploit it?



SOME ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF TELEVISED

TRIALS:

a defense against corruption; some believe that judges will

intentionally influence the outcome of a trial by verbally attacking the

defendant and their attorney in front of the jury

it gives the public the chance to see the opportunity to see the justice

system in action and how our legal system operates; many t.v. shows

present the legal system in a glamorous way

it will help lower the crime rate by making examples of criminals

will improve confidence in the judiciary system

instead of relying on a journalist¶s interpretation (newspapers, etc.),we can watch and draw our conclusions

will provide public monitoring, which provides a powerful incentive for

all involved to increase their efficiency and adhere to good standards

of behavior

ARGUMENTS AGAINST



ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

participants in a trial which is being broadcast are aware they¶re being

watched, and this could very well alter the behavior of those involved; shifts

the focus to attention seeking and away from finding someone guilty or innocent

criminal trials are a very serious matter and not something that should be

viewed for entertainment

people have a right to privacy; just because you may have broken the law,

you should still have a right to privacy

opens up the media to scrutinizing the defendant-picking apart the

participants in the case, which could the affect the outcome of the trial

judges, jurors and attorneys end up playing for the camera instead of

concentrating on the case

victims may be less likely to give evidence of painful incidences if they know

they are being televised



For Example:

O.J. Simpson trial

The most memorable event from the trial of O. J.Simpson was his inability to fit his hand into the glove

found at the murder scene. However, much less

prominence was given in the television coverage to the

hours of scientific evidence that proved it was possible

that the glove had shrunk.

Following the televised trial of O. J. Simpson, several

witnesses jurors gave interviews to the media, or wrote

their memoirs of the case. A popular following of a trial

often encourage witnesses and jurors to become

involved in the media coverage. This interference may

affect the reliability of the witness¶ evidence or the

jurors¶ verdict.



The Right to an Impartial Jury:

Not only must jury members not have improper

biases before the trial begins, but they must alsonot be improperly prejudiced by the case or by

media coverage of the case.

Since juries are by definition made up of

members of the community, and human beings ingeneral tend to be good at developing prejudices,

this can be a challenge.



...Unless You're a Kid:

Juvenile defendants are not entitled to a jury trial under

the Sixth Amendment.This is consistent with the overall higher level of privacy

granted in juvenile courts, where sentences are less

harsh and criminal records are generally kept private.

FYI: The normal age of these defendants is under 18,but juvenile court does not have jurisdiction in cases in

which minors are charged as adults.



To Be Confronted with

Witnesses:

Some courts are currently wrestling with the issue of

whether victims who are not emotionally prepared to

testify directly in front of their accusers can testify on

closed-circuit television instead.

This is particularly tempting in cases of child abuse,

where the victim--already asked to courageously speak

about a traumatic event on the record and in public--could be intimidated into silence by the perpetrator's

presence.



Assistance of Counsel:

Everyone tried for a criminal offense is given

the right to an attorney.

Public defenders, who take on the cases of

those who can't afford private lawyers, are often

overworked, and underpaid.

Attorney/Client Privilege: statements made by a

client to his/her lawyer are confidential



Gideon

V

Wainright (1964)

landmark case that established that the accused has the right to

an attorney even is he/she cannot afford one

Gideon, accused of a felony in Florida, requested the assistance

of a lawyer. The Florida criminal justice system allowed free

assistance only in cases that were punishable by death.

Gideon defended himself and lost

The Supreme Court ruled that his Six Amendment due processrights made applicable by the Fourteenth Amendment were

denied



THE SEVENTH

AMENDMENT

In Suits at common law, where the value in

controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the

right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no

fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-

examined in any Court of the United States,

than according to the rules of the commonlaw.



In a Nutshell:

The Seventh Amendment requires JURY trials in civil

lawsuits where ordinary damages (legal damages that a

jury or judge awards a plaintiff to "compensate" them for their legal losses) are sought. ex. hurt in a car

accident, fall down in the parking of Wal-Mart

No Jury for Divorces: A jury is not required in family law

cases (such as divorce and custody cases).

No Consensus Required: A simple majority is enough.



THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor

excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and

unusual punishments inflicted.

Since sometimes convicts are poor, the issue

of excessive fines is central to our criminal justice system



The Ninth Amendment

protects implicit rights hinted at but notspecified elsewhere in the Constitution.

Implicit rights include the right to privacy,

basic unspecified rights such as the right to

travel and the right to the presumption of

innocence.



The Tenth Amendment

powers not granted to the federal government

nor prohibited to the states by the Constitutionare reserved to the states

when the Bill of Rights was originally, it only

applied to federal law-

the fourteenth amendment extended the Bill of

Rights to both state and federal law

bill of rights amendments 2-10

Documents