Court Cases Maddy Sommer, Nick Fenton, Nathan Gerrard

New Jersey v. T.L.O. Decided: January 14, 1985 Originally argued: March 27, 1984 Reargued: October 01, 1984

Major Points T.L.O. was a high school student when school officials searched her purse suspecting she was in possession of cigarettes. The officials discovered cigarettes, a small amount of marijuana, and a list containing the names of students who owed T.L.O. money. T.L.O. was charged with possession of marijuana. Before trial, T.L.O. requested to suppress evidence discovered in the search, but was denied this motion. The Juvenile Court of New Jersey in Middlesex County found her guilty and sentenced her to probation for one year.

Major Points Continued On appeal, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress evidence; however, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures conducted by school officials in public schools

What do you think the court decided? New Jersey claimed that the School had a right to search the purse and the evidence found could be used in court. T.L.O claimed that the school does not have the right to search her purse according to the exclusionary rule; therefore the evidence should be suppressed.

Ruling The Court ruled in favor of New Jersey 6-3

Decision The Supreme Court ruled that the search for marijuana by the school was reasonable. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed the case needed to be calendered for reargument, concerning whether the principal violated the Fourth Amendment. Justice Stevens dissented, stating New Jersey did not include the Fourth Amendment question in their petition, which does not allow the Supreme Court to give guidance on questions the parties did not put at issue.

Nix v. Williams Decided: June 11, 1984 Argued: January 18, 1984 Docket nos

Major Points Robert Williams, an escaped mental patient, kidnapped and murdered ten-year-old Pamela Powers from a YMCA in Des Moines, Iowa on December 24, 1968.YMCADes Moines, Iowa He surrendered to police two days later in another county on the condition that he not be interrogated while being transported back to Urbandale. One of the detectives began a conversation and proposed that Williams reveal where he had left the body before an impending snowfall; Williams agreed and led the detectives to Power’s body. Williams was subsequently convicted of the murder, but in Brewer v. Williams (1977), the US Supreme Court ruled that his right to counsel had been violated based on the precedent of Massiah v. United States (1964).Williams' conviction was thereby reversed.Brewer v. Williams US Supreme Courtright to counselMassiah v. United States

Major Points Continued Justice Potter Stewart's majority opinion, however, contained a footnote suggesting that the evidence provided by Williams could still be used in a trial.Potter Stewart Williams then received a second trial, in which his attorneys again moved to suppress all evidence stemming from the interrogation of Williams by the detectives. The judge ruled that Williams' statements to the detectives were inadmissible, but citing Stewart's footnote, ruled that the body was admissible as evidence, as it would have inevitably been discovered by law enforcement. On July 15, 1977, Williams was again convicted of first degree murder.first degree murder Williams appealed that decision until it reached the Supreme Court.

What do you think the court decided? Nix claimed that evidence pertaining to the discovery of a body was properly admitted because it would have ultimately been discovered, even if the defendant's right to counsel had not been violated. Also that the State need not prove the absence of bad faith in securing the evidence. Williams claimed his right to counsel had been violated and the state illegally obtained the evidence which would make it inadmissible in court.

Ruling The Court ruled in favor of Nix 6-2

Decision The majority opinion found that an "inevitable discovery exception" to the exclusionary rule was constitutional, noting that such a rule was already standard practice in most state and federal courts. The Court stated that law enforcement was not required to demonstrate that it had violated a defendant's rights in good faith, only that the evidence would have inevitably been found despite the violation. Williams' conviction was thereby upheld. Brennan's dissent agreed that an inevitable discovery exception existed, but argued that the burden of proof should be strengthened from the "preponderance of the evidence" required by the majority opinion to "clear and convincing evidence"burden of proof

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Argued - January 14, 1963 Decided - March 13, 1963

Major Points Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felony in Florida for breaking into a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor. The Florida court denied Gideon an attorney because under state laws the court could only appoint an attorney if a person is charged with a capital offense. Gideon was forced to represent himself and eventually found guilty by a jury. He was sentenced to five years in prison Gideon wrote to the Supreme Court

What do you think the court decided? Gideon claimed His 6th Amendment right was violated which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Wainwright claimed ● Louie L. Wainwright represented the Florida State Corrections in appeals court. ● Under Florida law an attorney could only be appointed if the charge was capital.

Ruling The Court ruled in favor of Gideon 9-0.

Decision Justice Hugo Black announced the decision with Justices Clark, Douglas, and Harlan concurring. Powell v. Alabama and Betts v. Brady set precedents. Betts v. Brady was overturned by Gideon v. Wainwright. Clark stated that the Sixth Amendment did not differentiate between capital and noncapital offenses. Harlan stated that the mere existence of a criminal offense was a special circumstance.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Argued - March 28-29, 1965 Decided - June 8, 1965

Major Points Estelle T. Griswold was the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League in Connecticut Griswold and the medical director both gave married couples information, instruction, and other medical advice regarding birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under the 1897 Comstock Act which prohibited the use of any drug, medicinal article, or instrument with the intention of preventing conception. In Tileston v. Ullman and Poe v. Ullman two similar cases surrounding conception laws were denied appeal by the Supreme Court Griswold and her associates conviction was upheld by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court and the Connecticut Supreme Court

Major Points Continued Griswold argued that Connecticut was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment which states, ”no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… nor deny any person the equal protection fo the laws,” (Amendment 14 Section 1).” The main issue at hand was the right to privacy.?

What do you think the court decided? Griswold claimed Connecticut was violating their 14th Amendment right. Connecticut claimed ● Griswold violated the state law ● The Constitution does not directly protect the right to privacy

Ruling The Court ruled in favor of Griswold 7-2

Decision William Douglas found that, even though the Constitution does not explicitly state any rights to privacy, there are penumbras and emanations held within other constitutional rights, using the Fifth Amendment for support. Justices Arthur Goldberg and John Marshall Harlan wrote concurring statements using the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment for support. Byron White wrote a concurring statement using due process for support. Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart wrote dissenting statements criticizing the interpretations of the Amendments.

Works Cited Griswold v. Connecticut. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 9, 2016, from Gideon v. Wainwright. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 11, 2016, from New Jersey v. T.L.O.. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 11, 2016, from Nix v. Williams. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2016, from