Amendment February 9 2016 Civil Liberties and the Vinson Court Rights of the Accused Vinson Court is generally conservative in the rights of the accused Fourth Amendment Rights Wolf v Colorado 1949 What criminal justice standards must states apply Does the 4th Amendment guarantee apply to the states as part of the Due Process Guarantee If so does Weeks exclusionary rule apply As far as the federal government is concerned the 4th Amendment is part of the 14th Amendment guarantee Court says yes 4th Amendment does apply to the states Court says no Weeks exclusionary rule is not applicable to the states Case concerned abortion How they treat people who are accused of crimes how they treat people put on trial of the 14th Amendment Dr Wolf performed illegal abortions evidence used to convict him violated the 4th Amendment precedent of Weeks States should be able to experiment with other ways of enforcing the 4th Amendment there Wolf s lawyers argued that this was an unreasonable search and seizure and violated the 4th They argued that evidence that was unconstitutionally obtained must be excluded under the Justice Frankfurter The 14th Amendment Due Process provides minimal standards Dissenters protest wandering down the 4th Amendment once a right is incorporated it is The dissenters also argued that there is no realistic alternative to the exclusionary rule 11 Another notable Vinson Court criminal procedures case Is the 5th Amendment guarantee against self incrimination incorporated in the 14th Guarantee against self incrimination is not inherent to a fair trial Justice Black s dissent argues that there is historical evidence that framers intended the Bill of Rights to be incorporated under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause as being applicable to states What Justice Black was doing was rejecting what Justice Cardozo was arguing in Palko v Adamson v California Amendment Connecticut Racial Discrimination Discrimination in Education Sweatt v Painter 1950 Sweatt refused admission to University of Texas Law School solely because of race Texas creates state law school for African American Sweatt refuses to register The case came up to the Supreme Court which unanimously ruled that the law school for Under some circumstances separate can never be equal McLaurin v Oklahoma 1950 African Americans was not equal to University of Texas Law School learn his profession rent to African Americans or Mongols The decision reinforced the Sweatt decision Segregated treatment of doctoral student is a violation of Equal Protection Unanimous court struck this down as a violation of Equal Protection These restrictions impair and inhibit his ability to study engage with other students and to These two decisions enforced that in graduate education separation was inherently unequal These decisions were the basis for the litigation in Brown v Board of Education Shelley v Kraemer 1948 In 1911 a group of homeowners signed an agreement stating that they would neither sell or Property must be occupied by the caucasian race Some properties in this neighborhood were owned by POC In 1945 one of the white homeowners who s home was covered by the restrictive covenant sold his home to an African American family the Shelley s The neighborhood sued the Shelley s argued that the restrictive covenant is a contract and The case went up to the Supreme Court The Supreme Court ruled that while signing these covenants was legal the state courts cannot enforce racially restrictive covenant because it constitutes a state action denying equal protection and denial of property without Due Process discrimination laws was a valid exercise of the states police power Discrimination of Public Accommodations Bob Loe Excursion Company v Michigan 1948 Excursion company not foreign commerce what the state was doing by enforcing its anti Goesart v Cleary 1948 Michigan law prohibits women from being bartenders unless they were the wife or daughter Majority nds a rational basis for the law of a male owners Is there a rational basis for the law If there is the law is okay Lowest level of scrutiny must be enforced by the state court Dissenters The law violates equal protection Warren Court Spans the 1950s and 60s The major thrust of the court was towards increased protection of Civil Liberties The Warren Court and the First Amendment Political Free Speech Radicals and Loyalty Oaths 3rd phase sautons 4th phase struck down anti radical legislation Climax Brandenburg Brandenburg v Ohio 1969 Court struck down an Ohio criminal law that made the advocacy of illegal force and violence The Court brought back the Clear and Present Danger Test a crime The Court also reformatted the test to include only an incitement to imminent lawless action can be prohibited Case KKK leader States cannot punish mere advocacy Also overturned the 1927 precedent Keyishian v Regents 1967 Court vigorously defends academic free con Strikes down loyalty oath program Overturns Adler v Board of Education Loyalty oath programs violate the 1st and 14th Amendments Vietnam War Dissent United States v O Brien 1968 Anti draft card burning law Court upholds the law as punishing conduct rejects the symbolic speech argument Warren argued that the law does not plainly abridge free speech Had the Warren Court struck down this legislation there would have been serious outrage Tinker v Des Moines Independent Comm School District 1969 Students protest the Vietnam War they wore black armbands were suspended and their Parents asked for an injunction restraining the administration for punishing the students US Court of Appeals was decided on the issue and the case went up to the Supreme Court The Supreme Court ruled 7 2 in favor of the students against the Court they would have received enormous negative feedback parents sued Amendment The armbands did not disrupt the school symbolic speech protected by the 1st In our system state operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism Dissenters stressed conduct punished Freedom of the Press New York Times v Sullivan 1964 Libel suit against the New York Times by L B Sullivan Alabama courts awarded 500 000 Supreme Court unanimously overturns sets new standard for public of ce to prove libel Sedition Act of 1798 ruled unconstitutional Federal Government cannot restrain criticism of government and public of cials Only following actual malice can a public of cial recover damages Actual Malice Doctrine The media cannot be held libel for defamatory