The Bill of Rights

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. As a 7th grader in 2015, what is the most important protection offered by the 1st amendment? Why?

Freedom of Religion—2 main protections Establishment Clause: Government can’t ESTABLISH a national religion Free Exercise Clause: We have the right to practice religion freely (within reason) More about religion later!

Free expression includes: Speech Press Assembly (to gather) Petition (ask government for change) Dress, music, dance, art, Ideas, gestures Symbolic speech—acting out, using a symbol

Free expression DOES NOT INCLUDE: Profanity: Curse Words, etc. Obscenity: Strongly offensive image or statement Threats Lies Words to incite others Remember: Your rights end where the next person’s begin!

Tinker v. Des Moines Decision 1. Symbolic speech is protected because the armbands were a symbol of protest against the war 3.The Court decided that the students were allowed to wear the armbands because they didn’t disrupt the educational process. 4. This case EXPANDED our 1st amendment protections because students can now express their beliefs in school, as long as they don’t disrupt the educational process.

Texas vs. Johnson (1989) 3. The Court decided that Johnson’s act of flag burning was protected as symbolic speech 4. This case EXPANDED our 1st amendment rights because we can now burn the flag to express our opinions about the government

Warm-Up: Day 2 of Bill of Rights Unit How did Tinker vs. Des Moines expand the freedoms of students?

Texas vs. Johnson What type of speech does Texas vs. Johnson involve?

Symbolic Speech? What do you think? Why? Students across the state of Utah are enraged when Governor Leavitt signed a law extending the school day to 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, 12 months a year. To show their anger they burn a picture of Leavitt and the Utah Capitol, along with a textbook. Is this legal?

First Amendment Day 2: Freedom of Religion Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Establishment Clause: The government can’t make a national religion or show preference to any religion Free Exercise Clause: Government can’t stop americans from practicing religion freely

Freedom of Religion Which Justice feels this way? ___________________ There should be a “wall” between Church and State The government can’t favor, sponsor or participate in any religion. We should use the Lemon Test to decide whether a law is too religious. ___________________ The government can be involved with religion as long as it treats all religions equally The founding fathers didn’t want a wall between Church and State. If they did, they would have written it into the Constitution

Lemon Test Is the purpose of the law religious? Is the effect of the law to support or restrict religion? Does the law have the government tangle with religion?

Apply the Lemon Test to each law below. See front of page 6, #3 under Justice Hugo Black In American schools each day, students are asked to pledge to the flag. Contained in this salute are the words: “One nation, under God”. According to the Lemon Test, does this phrase violate the Establishment Clause?

Employment Division vs. Alfred Smith Supreme Court decided that a valid state law (in this case, drugs are illegal) is more important than a person’s right to exercise their religion freely. 4. This case SHRUNK our freedom of religion because valid laws are more important than our right to exercise religion freely

Wisconsin vs. Yoder

Decision in Wisconsin vs. Yoder 2. In Oregon vs. Smith, the law was more important than the freedom of religion. In this case, freedom of religion was more important than the law. 3. The Court decided that the law violated the free exercise of religion and the Amish were allowed to keep their children out of the public high school 4. This case EXPANDED our freedom of religion because it made the law less important than the freedom.

4th Amendment—List the protections you see 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.

4 Areas of Protection Person Home Eavesdropping Automobile

4 important ideas Reasonable Suspicion- A reasonable person would be suspicious that a crime has, is, or will take place (police get a call of a white car doing a hit and run. They see a white car in the area with a headlight out) Probable Cause- Good evidence that a crime is, was or will take place (seeing drugs, a weapon, a violent act) Reasonable suspicion is much less than the minimum for arrest, which is probable cause.

Warrant: Document allowing a search or arrest Warrant: Document allowing a search or arrest. Must be SPECIFIC about what/who is being searched and why. Exclusionary Rule: If something illegal is seen/heard by police that is not in the warrant, it must be excluded from evidence (can’t be used against you in court)

Person Police can STOP (detain) and FRISK (pat down) a person without a warrant if there is REASONABLE SUSPICION that a person HAS, IS, or IS ABOUT TO commit a crime Or if his/her safety is in jeopardy An officer can arrest and search a person if he/she finds evidence during a frisk

Home Police can enter/search a home with a SPECIFIC search warrant from a judge or with: Urgent circumstances Consent of the occupants If an item is in plain view

What is this artist saying about how police may take advantage of the idea of “in plain view”?

Which 4th Amendment protection is this cartoon referring to?

Eavesdropping Police need a warrant to listen in on a phone conversation Warrant must specify who is being listened to and for what crime

Automobiles Police must have probable cause to search a car without a warrant

Sibron vs. NY-Stop and Frisk C. Decision: Officer DID NOT have reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk (freedom of assembly protects our right to speak with drug users). Arrest was unconstitutional D. EXPANDS our 4th amendment freedoms. Police can’t stop and frisk without a good reason.

Katz vs. US—Eavesdropping/Wiretapping B. Arrest was illegal because an enclosed phone booth is an area where a person has an expectation of privacy EXPANDED our 4th Amendment freedoms because now police always need a warrant to wiretap a phone.

Mapp vs. Ohio B. The Court decided that the Exclusionary Rule, excluding evidence taken illegally from a search, is not admissible in court. EXPANDS our 4th amendment protections against the police entering our home

Arizona vs. Gant B. Arrest ILLEGAL because police may only search an unoccupied vehicle with a warrant or probable cause EXPANDS our 4th amendment right against random auto searches.

Fifth Amendment Protections Grand jury – a jury (23 people) which looks at the charges filed and decides if a person should be indicted (formally accused) Double jeopardy – You can’t be tried for the same crime twice Self-incrimination – You never have to speak against yourself (“plead the fifth”) Due process – Every person has the same rights Eminent domain – Gov’t can’t take your property without compensating you

List the protections you see in the Fifth Amendment—Each protection is separated by ;--there are 5 total No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Check and correct your answers. Which ones did you get? Grand jury – a jury (23 people) which looks at the charges filed and decides if a person should be indicted (formally accused) Double jeopardy – You can’t be tried for the same crime twice Self-incrimination – You never have to speak against yourself (“plead the fifth”) Due process – Every person has the same rights Eminent domain – Gov’t can’t take your property without compensating you

Which protection of the 5th does this represent?

California vs. Stewart The Issue: Due Process C. Rights violated: Self-incrimination, due process and right to an attorney (6th amendment) D. The Court Decided: Confession was coerced (forced/intimidated out of) and no lawyer was appointed, so it doesn’t count. E. Rights EXPANDED because police interrogation needs to be limited.

Stovall vs. Denno Issue: Due Process B. The Court Decided: Since she might not have lived, she couldn’t have made it to the police station, therefore, due process wasn’t denied. C. SHRINKS our rights because due process can be limited, depending on the circumstances.

6th amendment Speedy trial –Trial ASAP Public trial – The public can view the trial by attending or through the media Impartial jury –fair, unbiased jury of your peers Notice of accusation –Know the charges against you Confrontation –Confront witnesses against you Compulsory Process: a person has to come to court to give evidence Counsel –Right to a lawyer. If you can’t afford one, a lawyer will be appointed by the state

Parker vs. Gladden B. The Court Decided: Sided with defendant because the following were violated: right of confrontation: Bailiff’s comments weren’t in court, defendant couldn’t cross examine him Impartial jury: He tried to persuade the jury, outside of the court room Due Process: all people have same rights and other defendants don’t have to worry about a bailiff speaking against them. C. EXPANDS our rights to an impartial jury

Brewer vs. Williams C. The Court Decided: Sided with defendant (Williams) because: He was entitled to lawyer during interrogations and the conversation in the car was an interrogation D. EXPANDED our rights to counsel and due process. Police need to be careful when conversing with a suspect