A three-part test that determines whether an individual has received DUE PROCESS under the Constitution. The test balances (1) the importance of the interest at stake; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest because of the procedures used, and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the government's interest. Read more: Mathews v. Eldridge Test - Further Readings - Process, Court, Government, Procedures, Administrative, and Additional http://law.jrank.org/pages/8480/Mathews-v-Eldridge-Test.html#ixzz1FlBdCG9C

Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Reference Chapter 20

Due Process Freedom and Security of the Person Rights of the Accused Punishment

Due Process essentially, the government must act fairly and lawfully Court has determined its meaning case by case. 14th Amendment means that due process guarantees must apply to state, local governments and any administrative action

Due Process procedural substantive how the government acts Rochin v. California 1952 substantive the laws must be fair Pierce v. Society of Sisters 1925 On July 1, 1949, three Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs entered the Rochin's residence without a search warrant and forcibly entered Rochin's room on the second floor. Upon entering the room, the deputies noticed two capsules on the night stand. Rochin immediately swallowed the capsules after Deputy Jack Jones asked him, "Whose stuff is this?" Jones then grabbed and squeezed Rochin by the neck, as well as shoving his fingers in Rochin's mouth as he attempted to eject the capsules.[1] The deputies, unable to obtain the capsules, handcuffed and took Rochin to Angeles Emergency Hospital where he was strapped to an operating table and had a tube forcibly placed in his mouth and into his stomach and given an emetic solution, whereupon he vomited the capsules into a bucket. The deputies then retrieved the capsules and tested them to be morphine.[2] Subsequently, this was submitted as evidence, and Rochin was found guilty of violating California Health and Safety Code § 11500 as having an unlawful possession of morphine. “shocks the conscience” test

10th Amendment reserves this power to the states limits on alcohol, tobacco pollution laws vaccinations Police Power: to protect and promote public health public safety morals general welfare concealed weapons seat belt laws DUIs gambling pornography prostitution compulsory education Medicaid PUC regulation Police Power cannot violate Due process Clause of 5th/14th amendment

Right to Privacy Stanley v.Georgia 1969 —the right to be let alone Griswold v. Connecticut 1965 – can’t prohibit birth control counseling and the use of contraceptives

Right to Privacy Roe v. Wade 1973 – abortion 1st – no restriction 2nd – reasonable regulations 3rd – can prohibit all but medically necessary Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992 – women must receive counseling to persuade her against abortion must wait at least 24 hours after counseling unmarried minor must have parental or judicial consent doctors and clinics must keep detailed records. does not place “ a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion…”

Freedom of Security –Home and Person 4th Amendment – Warrants and Probable Cause no general right to search or seize without a warrant exceptions “plain view” “informational roadblocks and DUIs” after a person is arrested “common sense” grounds—suspect flight public place arrests with probable cause

4th Amendment – Warrants and Probable Cause Automobiles “moveable scene of the crime” California v. Acevedo 1991 When it’s a lawful stop AND the police have probable cause, police do not need a warrant to search anything in the car. including passenger’s stuff, and drug-sniffing dogs even if there was not suspicion at the time of the stop

4th Amendment – Warrants and Probable Cause Exclusionary Rule Can’t be convicted with illegally acquired evidence Mapp v. Ohio 1961 Exceptions “inevitable discovery” “good faith” “honest mistakes” warrant for gambling, popped for obscene materials

4th Amendment – Warrants and Probable Cause Drug-testing employment sports/extracurricular activity Wiretapping with a warrant Katz v. United States 1967 (phone booth) entitled to private conversation NSA electronic surveillance program

Military Commissions Act of 2006. http://www. tenthamendmentcenter

Rights of the Accused Writs of Habeas Corpus No bills of attainder, ex post facto laws Federal Grand Jury for serious crimes No double jeopardy

Rights of the Accused Speedy and Public Trial but not too speedy or too public 45 minute murder trial w/hostile audience tv in the courtroom

Rights of the Accused Trial by Jury defendant may ask for a “change of venue” defendant may decline-bench trial juries may vary in size (6-12) may not require a unanimous decision no one may be excluded from jury duty based on gender, race, color, national origin or religion

Rights of the Accused Right to Counsel/No self-incrimination Escobedo v. Illinois 1964 Gideon v. Wainwright 1963 Miranda v. Arizona 1966 Escobedo questioned for murder of broth-in-law, asked and was refused to see his attorne, cops knew attorney was in the bldg. escobedo incriminated himself. conviction overturned Gideon couln’t afford an attorney and was convicted of breaking and entering

Escobedo v. Illinois 1964 SC overturns

Miranda v. Arizona 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. The case began with the 1963 arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda, who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation. During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the crimes, which the police apparently recorded. Miranda, who had not finished ninth grade and had a history of mental instability, had no counsel present. At trial, the prosecution's case consisted solely of his confession. Miranda was convicted of both rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The court disagreed, however, and upheld the conviction. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1966. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself," and Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney.

Punishment Bail no automatic entitlement to bail justification for bail shouldn’t be jailed until proven guilty better able to prepare for trial can’t be set at what is higher than what will reasonable assure that the defendant will appear. Stack v. Boyle 1951

Preventive Detention 1984 Congressional action judge can order “preventive detention” for someone who might commit another serious crime before trial. Supreme Court upheld the decision in 1987

Cruel and Unusual Punishment? Yes burning @ stake crucifixion drawing & quartering excessive force deprivation denationalization Such punishment as would amount to torture or barbarity, any cruel and degrading punishment not known to the Common Law, or any fine, penalty, confinement, or treatment that is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. No firing squad electrocution twice lethal injection hanging 3 Strikes Laws http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/washington/09cnd-scotus.html . El_Masri and extraordinary rendition and torture

Capital Punishment—Death Penalty 1972 – Court struck down state death penalties because they were capriciously and/or randomly applied. State response Mandatory sentence –unconstitutional 2-step procedure to apply the death sentence trial conviction sentencing trial

Capital Punishment—Death Penalty 2-stage laws are OK crime must result in death of victim can’t be applied to the mentally challenged can’t be applied to those under 18 at the time of the crime must be decided by the jury that convicted defendant can’t be manacled at dp hearing

p. 523 in text