Jeffrey miller Marist school Emory national debate institute Topic Lecture Jeffrey miller Marist school Emory national debate institute

2016-2017 Topic Areas Africa Cuba Debt in America Drug Policy Federal Judiciary Floating X Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0) Gambling Regulations Gender Equality Gun Violence Middle East U.S. Constitution U.S. Military Water Security

The United States Constitution The September/October topic area

Which Bill of Rights Are Debatable? First Amendment Freedom of Speech, Expression, etc. Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms Third Amendment No quartering of soldiers Fourth Amendment Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures Fifth Amendment Right to Due Process, Freedom From Self Incrimination Sixth Amendment Right to Speedy Trial Seventh Amendment Right of Trial by Jury in civil cases Eighth Amendment Freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment Ninth Amendment Other Rights of People Tenth Amendment Powers Reserved to the States

ROLEPLAY ACTIVITY – YOU’RE THE WORDING COMMITTEE MAKE A RESOLUTION FOR YOUR NUMBER YOU HAVE five to ten MINUTES.

The Fourth Amendment Provides…. OR DOES IT? the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Consent (Amos vs. United States) Plain View (Ker vs. California) 1912 1921 1925 1963 1968 Search Incident to Lawful Arrest: John is arrested for driving while intoxicated after being pulled over for running a red light. A search of his car reveals 8 bags of heroin in the glove compartment and an illegal handgun in the trunk. The heroin is admissible evidence for which no warrant was required as the glove compartment is certainly within John’s wingspan. The gun found in the trunk, however, was not within his wingspan, and was the result of an unreasonable search. This evidence will be excluded. Plain View Story: The police are called to Donald’s house by neighbors who see him beating up his wife, Victoria. After properly entering the house (without a search warrant – see emergency exception below), police notice Donald’s prized gun collection hanging on the wall. Fortunately for the officers, the guns are not loaded. Unfortunately for Donald, many of them are illegal and Donald is arrested for battery as well as for the illegal guns, which are seized. Consent: Officer Warren knocks on a murder suspect’s door. the door is answered by the suspect’s 6 year old child, Timmy. The officer asks Timmy “Is it okay if I come in and talk to your Dad? He’s expecting me.” And then walks into the apartment. He then sees the suspect, Roland, sitting on the sofa oiling his illegal Tommy-gun, the suspected murder weapon. He arrests Roland for possession of the gun and seizes the evidence. Because Timmy, being a small child, was not legally able or authorized to give consent, the entry was illegal and the evidence will be excluded. Stop & Frisk: Officer P. Harker’s peers often joke that he has something akin to a “spidey-sense” which tells him when folks are up to no good. While enjoying a cup of coffee at his favorite donut shop, Officer Harker’s neck hairs stand up straight. He immediately goes outside where he sees Ivan walking down the street, carrying a small duffel bag. He orders Ivan to stop and drop the bag. When the bag falls, Officer Harker hears the clanging of metal against metal. He then frisks Ivan and discovers a hidden pistol in Ivan's pocket. He then searches the duffel bag and discovers ammunition and several illegal hunting knives. Despite the fact that Officer Harker’s “spidey-sense” proved accurate once again, the evidence will be excluded as he can not articulate any reason why he stopped Ivan, other than his unusually active neck hairs. Automobiles: Officer Demidum has reason to believe that an abandoned car on the corner contains illegal drugs in the trunk. The car is missing all four wheels and is up on cinder blocks, and the engine was stolen long ago. Assuming that the automobile exception applies, Officer Demidum uses a crowbar to force open the still-working lock on the trunk. There, he finds 10 kilos of cocaine. Rushing back to the station house to show off the evidence to his Captain, Officer Demidum runs into Judge Sosad. Judge Sosad says “You should have called me first. While it’s great to get the drugs off the street, unfortunately we can’t use this as evidence against anyone. The search was illegal, as the automobile exception to the warrant requirement only applies when the vehicle is actually capable of being moved. That’s the whole point of the exception!” A dejected Demidum continues on to the station, where he has to tolerate cars drawn in shaving cream on his locker for the next month. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest (Weeks vs. United States) Automobile Exceptions (Carroll vs. United States) Stop & Frisk (Terry vs. Ohio)

The Reasonable Suspicion Standard – Terry v. Ohio Police may stop a suspect so long as there is a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. The evidence necessary for “reasonable suspicion” here is something beyond mere suspicion, but is less than the level required for probable cause. If there is reason to believe that the person may be armed and dangerous, the police can also frisk the suspect. 

Anybody know where else the reasonable suspicion standard is used in searches and seizures? HINT

New Jersey vs T.L.O

New Jersey v. T.L.O https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY4fPF6dijU

School Searches Topic Resolved: in united states k-12 public schools, the probable cause standard ought to apply to searches on students.

Vernonia School District v. Acton Generalized random drug testing of students is okay Safford Unified School District v. Redding Strip searches of students are illegal 1985 1995 2002 2009 2014 New Jersey v. T.L.O Established reasonable suspicion for schools Board of Education v. Earls Mandatory drug testing of students is okay Riley v. California Warrantless searches of cellphones are unconstitutional Not about schools!

Why now? The “balancing act” standard has not been revisited since the invention of new technology like personal laptops AND cell phones. Recent court decisions mean a school search court case is looming!

School officials need only reasonable suspicion to search students in public schools, but sworn law enforcement officials normally must have probable cause to search students. Probable cause to search exists when "known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband…will be found" Kate Ehlenberger, 2002 RESOLVED: IN UNITED STATES K- 12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THE PROBABLE CAUSE STANDARD OUGHT TO APPLY TO SEARCHES ON STUDENTS.

‘ought’ is used to express a duty or moral obligation. Moti Mizrahi, 2009 the practical ‘ought’ is clearly indexed to a particular agent and time, and it is a constraint on what “ought” to be the case, in this sense, that it should be realizable by what the agent thinks or does at that time; the political ‘ought’, on the other hand, is not indexed to any particular agent and time in this way. Ralph Wedgewood, 2006 RESOLVED: IN UNITED STATES K- 12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THE PROBABLE CAUSE STANDARD OUGHT TO APPLY TO SEARCHES ON STUDENTS.

National School Safety Center, 1995 Searches must be reasonable in scope in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction. Reasonable in scope has several applications. First, consider the size of the item for which you are searching. If you receive credible information that Jane has brought an AK-47 to school, a search that is reasonable in scope might include her locker; it would not include her purse. Although some might say that they were searching for bullets, no reasonable person would search for an AK-47 in her purse. Secondly, scope is also concerned with the intrusiveness of the search. No reasonable person would strip search a student to find a missing three dollars. National School Safety Center, 1995 RESOLVED: IN UNITED STATES K- 12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THE PROBABLE CAUSE STANDARD OUGHT TO APPLY TO SEARCHES ON STUDENTS.

Major Affirmative Arguments School Power/Minority Rights Cell Phone Searches Drug Testing Bad Constitutional Spillover

Major Negative Arguments Gun Violence Cyber Bullying/Cell Phones Reasonable Suspicion Good Probable Cause Fails