1. 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

2. Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights
Reference Chapter 20

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

4. 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

5. 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 § as having an unlawful possession of morphine. “shocks the conscience” test

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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…”

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. Escobedo v. Illinois 1964
SC overturns

23. 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 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.

25. 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

26. 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

27. Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
Yes
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
. El_Masri and extraordinary rendition and torture

28. 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

29. 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

30. p. 523 in text