Court Cases BY: TRENT PETERSON, JOEY OLIVA, TAYLOR NORTON, AND OLIVIA PENTENCHRI

District of Columbia v. Heller  Docket NO  Date argued: March 18, 2008  Date decided: June, 26, 2008

Background  Heller is a police officer for the District of Columbia.  The Firearm Regulation Act of 1975 would not grant him to keep a hand gun in his home.  The supreme court took the case in question of does the F.R.A of 1975 restrict the second amendment right.  SECOND AMENDMENT: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  The question being: Should the F.R.A of 1975 be marked as unconstitutional?

The Two Sides (1)  Justice Scalia:  He interpreted the word “Militia” as not only official military and government personnel to hold and use fire arms.  At the time the Amendment was written any person was part of a “militia” to protect their own land.  He believed to limit this right would be putting the government over its people where they cannot defend themselves.  Justice Stevens:  The second amendment does not give unlimited right to posses guns.  Weapons should be used for military use only.  He combats Justice Scalia’s definition of “militia”.

The Question  What do you think the court decided and Why?

The Decision  The court decided in favor of Heller 5-4 on striking down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act as unconstitutional.  Justices: Scalia, Roberts Jr, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy believed it needed to be revised.  Justices: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer believed it was not strong enough.

McDonald vs. Chicago  Date Argued: September 29, 2009  Date Decided: June 27, 2010  Lower court – United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Background  Chicago resident Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old was the victim of several robberies in his own residence and he wanted to purchase a handgun. Due to a citywide handgun ban being passed in 1982, he was unable to legally own a gun  Prosecution argued the result of Heller should apply to the states as well.  District court dismissed suits, U.S. Court for Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed on appeal.  The court used Heller for precedence.  Heller (from last court case) ruled that the 2 nd Amendment applied to Federal Enclaves (Think Washington D.C.)

Questions  What do you think the court decided and why?

Decision  The Supreme Court decided in McDonalds favor 5-4.

 Court Overturned ruling of inferior courts (favor towards McDonald)  Held that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the individual states, protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and therefore applies to the states.  Alito wrote for the plurality (consisting of Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) that the Due Process clause incorporates the 2nd Amendment right recognized in Heller.  Also meaning the right to self-defense is a “fundamental” and “deeply rooted” right.

Mapp v. Ohio  Date argued: March 29, 1961  Date Decided: June 19, 1961

Background  On may 23, 1957 officers in Cleveland Ohio received info that a suspect in a bombing case as well as some illegal betting equipment might be found in Mapp's home.  Mapp wouldn’t let them in without a search warrant.  They returned with a “Warrant”  They didn’t find the bombing suspect but found pornographic material in a suitcase.  Fourth Amendment: 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.

Argument  Justice Tom Clark declared “we hold all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the constitution [is] inadmissible in a state of court… were it otherwise… the assurance against unreasonable… searches and seizures would be [meaningless]. “The court then ensured that “no man is to be convicted on unconstitutional evidence.”  From there on any evidence gained by an illegal search became inadmissible in all state courts.

Questions  Who did the Court favor and why?

Decision  The courts decision was in Mapp’s favor 6-3 and the court overturned Mapp’s conviction.  The states were bound to exclude any and all illegal evidence  Chief Justice: Earl warren  Associative Justices: Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John M. Harlan, William J. Brennan, Jr. Charles E. Whittaker, and Potter Stewart.

John W. Terry vs. State of Ohio  Argued: December 10, 1967  Decided: June 10, 1968

Background  Martin McFadden (Cleveland police department detective) spotted with John W. terry and Richard Chilton on a street corner acting suspicious.  They were walking the same route, then passing at the same store window, then proceeded to have a conference after.  Repeated that 5 or 6 times a piece. Roughly a dozen trips.  Third man came for one conversation then they met him again a couple blocks from the store.  The officer walked up and identified imself as an officer and asked for their names. They mumbled something then McFadden spun Terry around and patted down his outside clothing and felt a pistol in his pocket.  He removed the pistol and made all three of them face the wall and patted them down.  He found a revolver in Chilton's coat.  Took all three to the police station where Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons.

The Question  Who did the court favor and why?

Judgement  The court favored McFadden by 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the stop and frisk practice. Though it was determined that officer McFadden did not in fact have “probable cause” for a full search.  The trial rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during an incident to a lawful arrest.  They said the officer had cause to believe that Terry and Chilton were acting suspiciously and the officer, for his own protection, had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that man was armed.  Distinct difference between a “frisk” outer clothing for weapons than a full blown search for evidence.  Terry and Chilton were found guilty and the Ohio State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that “no substantial constitutional question” was involved.