Rochin, schmerber & mapp

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Protecting Individual Freedoms

Advertisements

Landmark Supreme Court Case Integrated Government Mrs. Brahe and Mrs. Compton.

Historical Background Dollree Mapp was under suspicion for possibly hiding a person suspected in a bombing. Mapp refused to let the police in her home.

Section 10.2 The Exclusionary Rule Section 10.2 The Exclusionary Rule.

Supreme Court Cases Use your knowledge of the Bill of Rights to determine how the Supreme Court should rule for each case.

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. I. OVERVIEW A. Due Process: The government, in whatever it does, must act fairly and follow established rules. 1.5 th Amendment:

UNIT 5 AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. LESSON PAGES How do the 4 th and 5 th Amendments protect against unreasonable law enforcement procedures? Objective:

Unit Five Lesson 31 How do the Fourth and Fifth Amendments Protect Against Unreasonable Law Enforcement Procedures.

MAPP V. OHIO Rachel Simmons. Background & Freedom at Issue  The 4 th and 14 th Amendments  With reasonable suspicion of a bomb at the house, the police.

D UE P ROCESS. The government cannot deny you life, liberty, or property without due process … what is due process? No solid definition Due Process- the.

Policing Legal Aspects Go to this Site. Due Process Most Due Process requirements are in either: –evidence and investigation –arrest –interrogation All.

Plain View Doctrine  Allows a police officer to seize evidence found in “plain view” during a search without a warrant. Also, when officers are carrying.

Chapter 20: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Section 2

The Bill of Rights The First Fundamental Changes of the Constitution.

THE 4 TH AMENDMENT The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall.

Crime and Due Process. There is always a question as to how we should deal with “improper evidence” in the courtroom; different nations approach the question.

LS100 Eight Skills Prof. Jane McElligott.  A Miranda Warning is a statement police must read to a suspect prior to interrogation of the suspect once.

Section 1 Due Process of Law 2 due process guarantees: Procedural & Substantive Due Process Definitions are vague.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;

4 th 5 th and 6 th Amendments By: YOGI PATEL COLE DAURIZIO JASON TRAN STEPHANIE SCHRADER Nichelle Anderson Atia Harris Kathy Cooper Lucas Pincione.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

The 4 th amendment. The 4 th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported.

The Investigation.  Right to remain silent  Right to an attorney  No interrogation should take place before they read  Are a result of the US Supreme.

Slide 1 III. Criminal Procedure and the Constitution A.Analyze and Define Criminal Procedure B.Analyze the provisions of the 4 th and 5 th Amendments pertaining.

Legal Studies * Mr. Marinello ARRESTS AND WARRANTS.

Essential Question How does the Constitution protect the rights of the accused?

3 rd Amendment What is the 3 rd Amendment? Why do we have the 3 rd Amendment?

 Sobriety Checkpoints - Stop every car/ done as a safety factor/ ok to do, because they stop everyone  Border Crossing : Dealing with national safety.

CH DUE PROCESS OF LAW ADVANCED AMERICAN GOVERNMENT CHAPTER 20 – CIVIL LIBERTIES: PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

DUE PROCESS. Procedural Due Process v. Substantive Due Process Procedural follows a set procedure, the same for all the accused Such as counsel, unreasonable.

Unit 3 The Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment To The United States Constitution The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,

4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall.

Substantive Due Process

Criminal Law Day 2.

Crime and Due Process There is always a question as to how we should deal with “improper evidence” in the courtroom; different nations approach the question.

Limiting the Right of Search

Rules of Evidence.

The 4th Amendment Notes 5-3.

Supreme Court briefs.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643.

Define! What is “Due Process?”

Impact of Supreme Court Cases on Law Enforcement

The 4th Amendment Search and Seizure.

AGENDA Today: Search and seizure

Name that tune! Raise your hand if you know how to answer BOTH of the questions below. Artist? How does this song relate to what we’re learning today?

Important Court Cases of the 20th Century

Liberalism vs. Conservatism

YouTube - The Declaration of Independence

The Fourth Amendment and the Home

Chapter 16 Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial

Fourth Amendment And Probable Cause.

Agenda- 1/25 Grab a chrome book and the worksheets!

The Investigation Chapter 12

By: Arron Ferguson Ignacio Leibas

4th Amendment According to the Fourth Amendment, the people have a right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable.

Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

CHAPTER 1 1/15/2019 BHS Law Related Education Program Criminal Justice

October 16, 2018 Modern Issues in the U.S. Agenda:

4th amendment By: KEila Aguilar.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS: THE INVESTIGATIVE PHASE

Chapter 20: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Section 2

Welcome PICK UP 4TH AMENDMENT NOTES & “ALLOWED OR NOT ALLOWED”

Search & Seizure The act of taking possession of this property.

Defendants’ Rights Edgenuity Lessons 3.4 and 3.5.

4th Amendment: Search and Seizure

School Searches and You

Constitutional Rights: Protections and Limitations

Presentation transcript:

Rochin, schmerber & mapp

Welcome Pick up the article on your way in. Come show me your worksheet “Allowed or Not Allowed”. If you did not do the optional assignment, please read the three cases Rochin, Schmerber & Mapp If you did the optional assignments, please come show me, and then read the Schmerber case. You will need your study guide out.

Let’s review the answers to “Allowed or Not Allowed”

Rochin v. California #17 How did the Supreme Court Rule? Rochin was suspected of dealing drugs 2 capsules. Rochin ate them (destroyed evidence. Ordered doctors to pump his stomach Warrant wasn’t for pumping his stomach, invasive procedure. “not reasonable” 5th- self-incrimination 14th- unfair treatment by government Why did the deputies enter Rochin’s house? What did the deputies notice when they entered Rochin’s room? What did he do? What did the deputies do as a result? What did Rochin claim was unreasonable about the search? What rights did Rochin claim were violated? How did the Supreme Court Rule? The government intrusion was so invasive that it “shocked the conscience”

Schmerber v. California #18 Why was Schmerber arrested? DWI. Evidence supported the arrest, crash, smell of alcohol & actions. How did the police obtain the evidence against Schmerber? Ordered doctor to draw blood Why did Scmerber claim his 4th, 5th &14th Amendment rights were violated? 4th- did not have warrant to search inside his body for alcohol 5th- forced to provide evidence against himself. 14th – felt sticking his arm with a needle was unfair treatment. Do you think they were violated? What was the Supreme Court’s ruling? Blood test is a simple medical procedure- did not “shock the conscience”. Schmerber v. California #18

Mapp v. Ohio #19 Why were the police at Mapp’s house? To look for a suspect in a bombing whom they believed was hiding in the house. Do you think this was an example of an unreasonable search and seizure? Yes. They did not have a warrant and had time to get one. Lied about having the warrant. They looked in boxes- suspect couldn’t have been in a box. What was Mapp convicted of? Possession of obscene material If the police had waited for a warrant, what would they have been looking for? A person Do you think the evidence obtained would have been allowed in court under that warrant? No, unless in plain view. The warrant would not have been general or looking for that type of material What’s the Exclusionary Rule? Evidence not legally obtained may not be used in a court of law. Can’t use illegally seized evidence.

Homework: On my website find Tinker v. Des Moines Read the article & answer #21 on your study guide