This preview shows page 1 out of 3 pages.

View Full Document
View Full Document

End of preview. Want to read all 3 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a GradeBuddy member to access this document.

View Full Document
Unformatted text preview:

POLS 101 1st Edition Lecture 8Outline of Last Lecture I. First Amendment protection of free expression and freedom of religion, II. Free Expression, III. 4 Doctrines or Tests the US Supreme Court uses to determine if a government decision infringes upon free expression.Outline of Current Lecture I. Rights of The Accused- Amendments 4,5,6,8Current LectureI. Rights of the Accused-Amendments 4,5,6,8A. Amendment 4- Search and Seizure1. When is it constitutional for police to collect evidence that may be used in trial?2. In colony, British troops could enter home to search without permission.3. The Police may not enter a home unless they have gone before judge to obtainwarrant or permit proving probable cause that there is information of illegal activities in the home.4. Early case that established protection- Mapp VS. Ohio 1961- Women was suspected of hiding bomb suspect and illegal gambling paraphernalia in home. Police weren’t required to obtain warrant, didn’t find suspect or paraphernalia but they found pornography. Women argued in court that police had no right to enter apartment and the evidence found was illegally seized. 5. Exclusionary Rule- when illegally obtained evidence is excluded from trail.6. 1960’s limitations of search and seizure were rescinded in later years, 1980 Police arrested man with expired warrant and found illegal drugs, convicted man challenged expired warrant in Supreme Court. Conviction was upheld thatit was a “good faith effort” to obtain warrant in first place7. In 2009, in 5 to 4 case justices decided that there was no need to exclude evidence due to isolated negligence, not a routine pattern, the court would allow illegal evidence to be used in trail.8. Examples of Exclusionary Rule Exemptions- Can police wire tap without a warrant and use evidence in court without warrant?These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.-1928- Yes, wire-tapping was constitutional.-1967- No ruled court-2001- Court said sometimes, it dependsMay police search garbage on curb? YESMay police search students or dorm? Yes, with probable cause (1982)May police pat down suspicious person on street without warrant? YES.May police search cars without a warrant, 1968, YES.B. Amendment 5- Indictment by Grand Jury1.Indictment- a formal process where government takes suspect before court to announce precisely what the charge is of the convicted. Gives police and prosecutor time to charge crimes.2. Grand Jury- determines if case can be seen in court or not, the grand jury is often respected citizens who review all indictments against individual citizens for a period of time. Only pertains to federal charges brought against the individual.3. Citizens are protected from Double Jeopardy, cannot be charged twice with the same crime, even if new evidence arises. -Individuals may face multiple trails for same action, if individual is acquitted of federal crime, the state may charge you of similar crime, can be charged in federal and state court.4. Coerced Confessions- What can the police do to obtain a confession?-1966-Miranda VS. Arizona- Citizens have “Miranda” rights, upon arrest police have to give a Miranda warning, that anything the arrested says can and will be used in court. Must mirandize, so to prevent coercion of confession, in order for confession to be used as evidence in court.C. Amendment 6- The Right to Council1. Powel Vs. Alabama- 1932- Young black men were accused of raping two white women. This was a capital offense, could receive death sentence. Defendants were convicted. Accused were poorly educated and could not afford lawyer. 2. In 1963 Supreme Court ruled that lawyer must be provided to the accused, Gideon Vs. Wainwright. Gideon was accused of breaking into vending machine to steal coins he demanded that he be provided with a lawyer. Gideon in Florida penitentiary, he demanded to appeal conviction. Florida denied appeal because of the minor nature of the crime. Gideon wrote own appeal and justices decided to hear appeal and was provided of a lawyer. Conviction was overturned, Supreme Court told original court to give Gideon a lawyer, although Gideon refused representation. Full conviction was eventually overturned.3. In 2001, right to council was expanded. Convicted have right to competent attorneys to help during plea bargaining


View Full Document
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Miranda Rights and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Miranda Rights and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?