1. BILL OF RIGHTS PROTECTIONS CHAPTER 14 – AMENDMENTS 2 - 10

2. THE IMPORTANCE OF DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED TO THE STATES BY THE 14 TH PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS = THE GOVT. MUST APPLY THE LAW FAIRLY AND FOLLOW A SET PROCEDURE IN CARRYING IT OUT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS = CONSIDERATION AND INTERPRETATION OF PERSONS, CIRCUMSTANCES, ETC. IN DECIDING WHETHER SOMETHING IS REASONABLE AND FAIR IN ITS APPLICATION MOST SUPREME COURT OPINIONS FALL UNDER SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS GITLOW V. NEW YORK (1925) APPLIES THE BILL OF RIGHTS (SELECTIVELY) TO THE STATES POLICE POWER – THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVT. TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE – IS LIMITED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

3. 2 ND AMENDMENT – RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS 2 ND AMENDMENT – A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED PRIOR TO 2007 – THE SUPREME COURT WOULD ONLY EQUATE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AS IT WAS IN RELATION TO A “WELL REGULATED MILITIA” PARKER V. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1988) – FIRST TIME THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT PRIVATE CITIZENS HAD THE RIGHT TO OWN WEAPONS D.C. V. HELLER (2007) – VIOLATED THE 2 ND AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE LAW BANNED AN ENTIRE GROUP OF WEAPONS THAT COULD BE USED FOR HOME DEFENSE - HOWEVER IT DID HOLD THAT THERE COULD BE REGULATIONS IMPOSED CONCEALED WEAPONS PROHIBITIONS, LIMITS ON THE RIGHTS OF FELONS AND THE MENTALLY ILL, LAWS FORBIDDING THE CARRYING OF WEAPONS IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS, LAWS IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON COMMERCIAL SALES, AND PROHIBITIONS ON THE CARRYING OF DANGEROUS AND UNUSUAL WEAPONS

4. 4 TH AMENDMENT – NO ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE “THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES” POLICE MUST FOLLOW SPECIFIC RULES FOR CARRYING OUT SEARCHES: SEARCH WARRANT – MUST SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE EXCLUSIONARY RULE – APPLIES TO ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED THAT VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO BE SECURE MAPP V. OHIO (1961) – 4 TH AMENDMENT INCORPORATED – ESTABLISHED THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE KATZ V. U.S. (1967) – SEARCH WARRANTS REQUIRED FOR WIRETAPS TERRY V. OHIO (1968) – “STOP AND FRISK” SEARCHES ARE VALID AS LONG AS THERE IS “REASONABLE SUSPICION” WARRANTLESS SEARCHES PERMITTED WHEN: SEARCH IS IN AN OPEN FIELD, “HOT PURSUITS”, CONSENT IS GIVEN (BY ANYONE IN THE RESIDENCE), RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN VIEWED BY ANOTHER PARTY, DRUG-SNIFFING DOGS, EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, IF SOMEONE IS ARRESTED, “GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION”

5. 5 TH AMENDMENT – PROTECTION DURING PROSECUTION FEDERAL DUE PROCESS CLAUSE GRAND JURY PROTECTION – NO INDICTMENT WITHOUT ONE DOUBLE JEOPARDY – LIFE AND LIMB NOT PUT IN JEOPARDY TWICE FOR SAME CRIME SELF-INCRIMINATION – DEFENDANT TESTIFYING IN COURT MIRANDA V. ARIZONA (1966) – THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT EMINENT DOMAIN - PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION

6. 6 TH AMENDMENT – PROTECTIONS DURING TRIAL SPEEDY TRIAL – LIMIT THE LONG DELAY THAT IMPAIRS THE ABILITY TO DEFEND ONESELF PUBLIC TRIAL – BELONGING TO THE DEFENDANT – COVERS ALL PROCEEDINGS – PUBLIC HAS ACCESS TO THE TRIAL RESTRAINS ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER, KEEPS WITNESSES MORE TRUSTWORTHY, CAUSES MORE MATERIAL WITNESSES TO COME FORWARD JURY TRIAL – PREVENTS OPPRESSION BY THE GOVERNMENT – MUST COME FROM A CROSS-SECTION OF SOCIETY “NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION” – CAN’T BE CONVICTED OF A CRIME THEY WERE NEVER INDICTED FOR U.S. V. CRUIKSHANK (1876) – CHARGES MUST BE SPECIFIC IN NATURE DELINEATING WHICH PART OF THE PENAL CODE HAS BEEN VIOLATED

7. 6 TH AMENDMENT – CONT. CONFRONTATION OF WITNESSES – DEFENDANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THEIR TRIAL – CAN BE WAIVED OR FORFEITED – ALLOWS FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESSES OBTAINING FAVORABLE WITNESSES – DEFENDANT CAN TESTIFY ON OWN BEHALF – SUBPOENAING OF WITNESSES COUNSEL – HAVING THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE POWELL V. ALABAMA (1932) – DEFENDANTS WERE ILLITERATE – NEEDED COUNSEL BETTS V. BRADY (1933) – DEATH PENALTY CASE GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT (1963) – FELONY CONVICTION

8. 8 TH AMENDMENT – FINES/BAIL & CRUEL/UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT EXCESSIVE FINES – THE PENALTY MUST FIT THE CRIME COMMITTED – CAN AMOUNT TO DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW EXCESSIVE BAIL – CAN NOT EXCEED THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO PAY, YET MUST BE HIGH ENOUGH TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE IN COURT – FLIGHT RISK QUESTION CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CRUEL – INHUMANE – CAUSES PAIN AND AGONY RATHER THAN JUST BE THE PENALTY FOR THE CRIME COMMITTED UNUSUAL – BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NORMAL PRACTICE WILKERSON V. UTAH (1879) – HANGING V. FIRING SQUAD FURMAN V. GEORGIA (1972) – CAN’T GIVE DEATH PENALTY IN AN ARBITRARY FASHION ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA (1962) – ALTERNATE PENALTY FOR DRUG ADDICTS RATHER THAN PRISON CONFINEMENT

9. 9 TH AMENDMENT – INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS PRESUMPTION OF LIBERTY – PEOPLE ARE FREE TO ACT IN ANY WAY THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE “COMMON-LAW RIGHTS” OF OTHERS GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT (1965) – MARRIED COUPLES AND CONTRACEPTION – ZONES OF PRIVACY ROE V. WADE (1973) – ESTABLISHED A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO ABORTION IN THE FIRST TRIMESTER MAIN BASIS FOR THE DECISIONS RESTED MORE ON THE 14 TH AMENDMENT RATHER THAN THE 9 TH EMPHASIS TOWARD THE DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW BEING DENIED

10. 10 TH AMENDMENT – FEDERAL V. STATES THE POWER GRAB ANY POWER NOT FORBIDDEN TO THE STATES NOR DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVT. IS RESERVED FOR THE STATES POLICE POWER IS RESERVED FOR THE STATES MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND (1819) – UPHELD THE SUPREMACY OF THE FEDERAL OVER THE STATE GOVTS. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. U.S. (1935) – STRUCK DOWN PART OF THE NEW DEAL CITING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVT WAS WIELDING POWER THAT RIGHTFULLY BELONGED TO THE STATES WITH MINIMUM WAGES AND FAIR LABOR CODES THERE ARE CONSTANT BATTLES BETWEEN THE TWO ENTITIES OVER POWER