Right to Bear Arms: Second Amendment Common national, state, and local gun laws include restrictions on owning and carrying handguns. background checks. limitations on the sale of certain types of weapons. requirements that guns be stored in a fashion to prevent their theft or children from accessing and firing them. Courts have usually upheld these.

Right to Bear Arms District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Militia Clause: Many advocates of gun control argued that the Second Amendment applied only to the right of states to create militias. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Individual right to possess a firearm are unconnected to service in a militia. Individuals can possess firearms for self-defense. It applied to federal enclaves, not incorporated into states’ rights because DC is not a state (it is an enclave, directly controlled by the federal government). McDonald v. Chicago (2010) incorporated gun rights into states and changed gun restrictions nationwide (Iowa surge in permits to carry).

Defendants’ Rights: Rights of the Accused Much of the Bill of Rights (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments) apply to defendants’ rights. Interpreting defendants’ rights Criminal justice personnel are limited by the Bill of Rights, and failure to follow constitutional protections may invalidate a conviction. Courts continually rule on what is constitutional and what is not.

Fourth Amendment, 1791: Searches and Seizures guarantees that searches and seizures will be conducted only when a judge feels that there is “reasonable cause” to issue a search warrant protects the right to privacy by limiting searches; evidence seized illegally without warrant cannot be used in court

PATRIOT Act (2001): Too Much Power Given to the Executive Branch? “sneak and peek” “lone wolf” “roving wiretaps” tips scale in favor of more powerful executive branch (includes agencies such as CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and Department of Defense)

USA Patriot Act (2001) Some believe that the PATRIOT Act conflicts with the protections given by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment requires that if people are to be investigated it must be with a valid search warrant signed by a judge and based on probable cause and the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty. This act makes it easy to spy on people, and people may never know their privacy has been violated.

Exclusionary Rule the rule that evidence, no matter how incriminating, cannot be introduced into trial if it was not legally or constitutionally obtained Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Critics say this rule allows some criminals to go free due to “technicalities.” Supporters respond that defendants’ rights are protected in a system where everyone is “innocent until proven guilty.” EXCEPTIONS: exigent circumstances: if probable cause exists, if a search is necessary for officer safety, if a search is limited to material within a suspect’s immediate control, or if material can be disposed of readily while waiting for a warrant (drugs) EXCEPTIONS: plain view: can seize and use in court

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Dollree Mapp lived in Cleveland, Ohio, where police forcibly entered her house without a search warrant and found obscene items. After being prosecuted and convicted, Mapp appealed her conviction to the Supreme Court. In Mapp, the Court expanded the reach of the Fourth Amendment to the actions of state law enforcement officers. Evidence illegally obtained could be excluded from trial. After Mapp, the use of search warrants increased dramatically in all states.

The Right to Privacy: Fourth Amendment What about the right to privacy? It is not specifically guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the first ten amendments to imply this right. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 makes states forbidding birth control unconstitutional; provides for zones of privacy in marital bedrooms

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) asserted the right to privacy. Roe v. Wade (1973) forbade states from controlling abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) upheld a Missouri law that prevented the use of state funds for abortion clinics and that prohibited state employees from performing abortions. Planned Parenthood v. Caseys (1992), while allowing abortions, increased regulation on them.

Fifth Amendment, 1791: Rights of an Accused Person This amendment guarantees that no one can be tried for a serious crime unless a grand jury has decided there is enough evidence. A person cannot be tried for the same crime twice (double jeopardy). Members of armed forced can be court martial. You cannot be forced to testify against yourself or answer questions that may incriminate you (self-incrimination). -due process of law (federal Level) Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Suspects must be informed of rights before being questioned.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination (Fifth and Sixth Amendments). A mug shot of Ernesto Miranda, whose wrongful conviction led to the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, in which the Court held that detained criminal suspects must be informed of their rights prior to police questioning.

Self-Incrimination: Fifth Amendment self-incrimination: when an individual accused of a crime is compelled to be a witness against themselves in court Police must inform suspects of these and other Fifth Amendment protections upon arrest. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) This amendment protects individuals from coerced confessions and entrapments.

Sixth Amendment, 1791: Right to a Speedy Trial protects the rights of individuals charged with federal crimes to defend themselves in a court trial right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury may ask to be tried by a judge; change of venue know charges to prepare a defense; right to hear and questions witnesses Legal counsel must be provided for a defendant in federal and state courts (Gideon v. Wainwright). 6th amendment required jury of 12 in federal cases; can be fewer in state cases; conviction does not require unanimous vote

The landmark 1963 US Supreme Court decision Gideon v The landmark 1963 US Supreme Court decision Gideon v. Wainwright established the right to counsel (Sixth Amendment) in criminal cases. It caused the most significant transformation in American criminal justice history: Every defendant, whether wealthy or poor, is guaranteed the right to a lawyer.

Defendants’ Rights Trials plea bargaining: a bargain between the prosecution and defense for a defendant to plead guilty to a lesser crime About ninety percent of cases end here and do not go to trial. Juries generally consist of twelve people, but unanimity is not always needed to convict. The Sixth Amendment also guarantees a “speedy and public” trial.

Eighth Amendment, 1791: Bail and Punishment bans “cruel and unusual punishment” but does not define “cruel and unusual”; prohibits excessive bail; prohibits excessive fines Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) overturned the death penalty because opponents of death penalty were excluded from jury at sentencing. Furman v. Georgia (1972) overturned Georgia’s death penalty because it was imposed in random ways with regard to race and income. Woodson v. North Caroline (1976) ruled against mandatory death penalties.

Gregg v. Georgia (1976) and McClesky v. Kemp (1987) The death penalty does not violate the Bill of Rights. That is, it is not considered “cruel and unusual” and does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment even though it is “extreme.”

Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988) ruled that there could be no death penalty for those under 16 years old. Miller v. Alabama (2011) ruled that life in prison without parole was cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles.

Fourteenth Amendment The Fourteenth Amendment is like a second Bill of Rights. The first ten protect us from abuses from the central government. The Fourteenth protects us from abuses from the states! FOUR clauses: Citizenship Clause, Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection of the Laws

Taking a Look at the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction [not owing allegiance to another country] thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.