1. 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 4 th amendment protections against the police entering our home

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

3. California vs. Stewart The Issue: Due Process C. Rights violated: Self-incrimination, due process and right to an attorney (6 th 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.

4. 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.

5. 6 th amendment Speedy trial –Trial ASAP Speedy trial Public trial – The public can view the trial by attending or through the media Public trial Impartial jury –fair, unbiased jury of your peers Impartial jury Notice of accusation –Know the charges against you Notice of accusation Confrontation –Confront witnesses against you Confrontation 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 Counsel