Term
| Stogner v. California (2003) |
|
Definition
Facts:
-In 1993, CA enacted a new criminal statute of limitations permitting prosecution for sex-related child abuse where the prior limitations period has expired if the prosecution starts within one year of a victim’s report to police
-In 1998, Marion Stogner was indicted for sex-related child abuse from 1955-1973
-Stogner wanted the complaint removed because it was Ex Post Facto Clause, which does not allow revival of previously time-barred prosecution
Question:
Does the Ex Post Facto Clause bar the application of CA’s retroactive extensions of limitations for sexual offense committed against minors?
Conclusion:
5-4 yes
-The law was enacted after the expiration of the previous limitations period, which violates Ex Pose Facto Clause
-party wasn’t liable by law to be punished
-there was 22 years in between crime and complain—too long
-accused party over such a long time can lose evidence that may prove innocence
Dissent:
-Minor child abuses should be treated differently because of fear to report, etc.
-Kennedy: a law that does not alter a crime but only revives prosecution does not make the crime greater than it was when committed.
Constitutional Importance: Ex Post Facto—4th Amendment |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts:
-Under the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act, any sex offender or child kidnaper put in prison in Alaska must register with the Department of Public Safety, which has a list of sex offenders
-some data is confidential but others, like name and photograph, are online.
-it’s retroactive
-John Doe I and II were convicted of aggravated sex offenses before the Act passed and are covered by it.
-Both brought suit claiming it was void because of the Ex Post Facto Clause in the Constitution.
Question:
-Does the Ex Post Facto Clause prohibit the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act’s retroactive punishment?
Conclusion:
6-3 No
-Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act’s retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it is not a punishment
-Meant to identify previous offenders to protect the public
-the stigma with registering did not make the act punitive
-just makes it available to public; not broadcasting it
Dissent:
-act could only cover those convicted of offenses committed after the effective date of the act to not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause
-punitive in effect
Constitutional Importance: Ex Post Facto—4th Amendment |
|
|
Term
| National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989) |
|
Definition
Facts:
-In 1986, the U.S. Customs Service started a drug testing program for certain employees who either carry firearms, are involved with stopping drugs as they enter the country, or are in high level positions with classified information.
Question:
Did the regulations violate the 14th Amendment?
Conclusion:
5-4 No
-substantial interests of the government in stopping drug trade justified not gaining the ordinary warrant and probable clause requirements with searches
-customs personnel are the country’s first line of defense against drug smugglers
Dissent:
-no clear frequency of use or connection to harm |
|
|
Term
| Board of Educations of…Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002) |
|
Definition
Facts:
Facts:
-The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy adopted by an Oklahoma School District requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity
-Two students and their parents brought suit saying the policy violated the Fourth Amendment
Question:
Is the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy consistent with the Fourth Amendment?
Conclusion:
5-4 Yes
-the policy reasonable serves the School District’s important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its student so it is constitutional
-The Board of Education’s general regulation of extracurricular activities diminished the expectation of privacy among students and that the Board’s method of obtaining urine samples was minimally intrusive on the students’ limited privacy interest.
Dissent:
-searching a student should fall under reasonableness
-schools may have special needs but this does not render to drug test system
-different from Verona case where there were risks and the team was the leader of drug culture
-nationwide students involved in extracurricular are less likely to use substance abuse
Constitutional Importance:
Search and Seizure—4th Amendment |
|
|
Term
| Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) |
|
Definition
Facts:
-In 1998, the City of Indianapolis began to operate vehicle checkpoints in an effort to prohibit unlawful drug use
-At each roadblock, one officer would conduct an open-view examination of the vehicle
-at the same time another officer would walk a narcotics-detection dog around the vehicle
-each stop lasted five minutes at most, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause
-both James Edmond and Joell Palmer were stopped at a checkpoint
-they filed a lawsuit for themselves and motorists who had been stopped or could be stopped, saying the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment and the search and seizure provision of the Indiana Constitution
Question:
Are the highway checkpoints consistent with the Fourth Amendment?
Conclusion:
6-3 No
-The checkpoint program’s main purpose was indistinguishable from the general interest of crime control, so they violated the Fourth Amendment
-only a possibility of drugs, not suspicions
Dissent:
-reasonableness of the city’s roadblocks depended on whether they served a significant state interest with minimal intrusion on motorists
-a law enforcement purpose could support a roadblock seizure is not presented; but it could just be to check driver’s licenses and to look for signs of impairment
Constitutional Importance: Search and Seizure—4th Amendment |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts:
-Cleveland police wanted to search Dolree’s residence. She refused a first time saying they didn’t have a search warrant. She was handcuffed after refusing a second time and placing in her shirt a search warrant
Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after and admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive (bombing-case suspect and betting equipment)
-she appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression
Question:
Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?
Conclusion:
6-3 for Ohio
-The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."
-Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. -This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.
Dissent:
-need to examine if illegally obtained evidenced is admissible in state court—this wasn’t looked at
Constitutional Importance: Exclusionary Rule—4th Amendment (Search and Seizure violations) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts:
-Roy Olmstead was a suspected bootlegger
-without judicial approval, feds installed wiretaps in the basement of his building and in the streets near his home
-he was convicted with evidence from the wiretaps
-solved along with Green v. US and McInnis v. U.S.
Question:
-Did the use of evidence from the wiretap, violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendment?
Conclusion:
No.
-The use of wiretapped conversations as incriminating evidence did not violate their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination because they were not forcibly made to conduct the conversations-were voluntarily made
-Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because wiretapping does not constitute a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment—these mean a physical examination of a person, papers and tangible materials or home
-it is unethical but you cannot keep evidence out based on moral reasons
-This case was reversed by Katz v. U.S. (1967)
-no search or seizure
Dissent:
-government does attempt to defend its officers
-only going by language of Constitution—but when this was first adopted the original meaning for illegal search and seizure was force and violence
Constitutional Importance: Self-incrimination—5th Amendment and Search and Seizure—4th Amendment |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Overturned Olmstead v. U.S.
Facts:
-Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz
-Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami.
-On appeal, Katz challenged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him.
-The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself.
Question:
Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require police to get a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?
Conclusion:
Yes
-The Court ruled Katz was allowed to have Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations
-physical intrusion not necessary
-4th amendment protects people not places
Concurrence:
-reasonable expectation of Fourth Amendment protection
Dissent:
-Fourth Amendment specifies tangible things
Constitutional Importance:
Search and Seizures—4th Amendment in a public place
Protects people not places |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. whether he had a subjective expectation of privacy in the place where the search took place
2. whether the society is ready to accept this expectation as reasonable
-protects people not places |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts:
-Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothed policeman as casing a stick-up.
-The office stopped and frisked the men and found weapons on them
-Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail
Question:
Was the search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment? i.e. Was the pat down without a warrant a violation?
Conclusion:
8-1 for Ohio
-it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be used as evidence against Terry
-officer acted on a hunch and a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing Terry was armed
-so he presented a threat to the officer’s safety wile he was investigating his suspicious behavior
-searches limited in scope and were designed for protection
Dissent:
-“probable cause” infringes personal liberty
-gives police greater power than a magistrate—goes does totalitarian path
Constitutional Importance: Search and Seizure of 4th Amendment in regards to protecting police officer off duty |
|
|
Term
| Samson v. California (2006) |
|
Definition
Facts:
-A police officer stopped and searched Samson on the street in San Bruno, California.
-The officer had no warrant and later admitted he had stopped Samson only because he knew him to be on parole.
-The officer found that Samson was in possession of methamphetamines.
-Samson was arrested and charged with drug possession in state court.
-At trial Samson argued the drugs were inadmissible as evidence, because the search had violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Questions:
Did the Fourth Amendment prohibit police from conducting a warrantless search of a person who was subject to a parole search condition, where there was no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing and the sole reason for the search was because the person was on parole?
Conclusion:
Conclusion:
6-3 for CA
No
-parole allows convicted criminals out of prison before their sentence is completed
-therefore, Samson did not have an expectation of privacy
-an inmate who chooses to complete the sentence outside of custody, remains in the legal custody of the Department of Corrections until sentence conclusion—has reduced privacy rights
-Samson was required to write a written consent saying he was subject to suspicionless searches and reduced privacy interests—makes search constitutional
Dissent:
-paroles have a greater expectation of privacy more so than prisoners
Constitutional Importance: privacy for parolees and search and seizure |
|
|
Term
| Chimel v. California (2006) |
|
Definition
Facts:
-police officers went to Chimel’s home with a warrant authorizing his arrest for burglary
-the wife let them in b/c the man was not home at the time—he came back 15 minutes later
-police asked if they could search the house but the man said no
-the wife accompanied them to through the rest of the house
-the search uncovered numerous items that later convicted Chimel
Question:
Was the warrantless search of Chimel’s home constitutionally justified under the Fourth Amendment as “incident to that arrest?”
Conclusion:
7-2 for Chimel
-The Court found it was unreasonable under the 4th and 14th Amendments
-“incident of arrest” limited to the area within the immediate control of the suspect
-the police could reasonably search and seize the evidence on or around the arrestee’s person, but they could not search and seize from the rest of the house without a search warrant
Constitutional Importance: Search and Seizure in room of arrestee |
|
|
Term
| California v. Ciraolo (1986) |
|
Definition
Facts:
-In Santa Clara, California, police received an anonymous tip that marijuana was growing in Ciraolo’s backyard.
-Ciraolo had a 6-foot outer fence and a 10-foot inner fence surrounding his property.
-Because of the fences, the police could not see the backyard when merely passing by the yard. -Officer Shutz and Officer Rodriguez got a private plane and flew over the house at a height of 1,000 feet in navigable airspace.
-The officers then verified that Ciraolo was growing marijuana in his backyard.
-They then photographed the yard.
Question:
-Do the police need to obtain a warrant to observe evidence that can be seen by the naked eye?
-Did the police looking into Ciraolo’s backyard violate his right to privacy?
Conclusion:
5-4 for California
-The Court agrees with Katz v. United States in that police need to obtain a warrant with only tangible evidence.
-Privacy should not be a question because Ciraolo’s fence implies his desire for privacy.
-The Fourth Amendment does not require officers to shield their eyes when passing by a home; therefore, the police were in public airspace when they saw the marijuana and were not required to shield their eyes.
-Therefore, the Court ruled that the police did not need a police warrant to investigate Ciraolo’s backyard by flying over it within public airspace.
Dissent:
-Police should be required to obtain a permit for conversations even though they are not tangible (bad physics and bad law).
-The government should not be able to infringe upon privacy in the manner that this case presents.
-Modern technology includes planes and the Katz case protects against advances in modern technology.
-Travelers in planes usually just skim landscape.
-They do not notice illegal activities with the naked eye during air travel.
-The police didn’t just happen to notice the marijuana.
Constitutional Importance:
This case is important because it sets the precedent for how police may handle public space that may not be convenient to reach, i.e. public air space. This case gives authorities extra room to perform searches and seizures. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts:
-While checking the immigration status of passengers on a bus in Texas, Border Patrol Agent Cesar Cantu squeezed the soft luggage.
-Cantu felt a brick like object in Steven Dewayne Bond’s bag.
-Bond consented to the search
-it had meth in it
-Bond was indicted on federal drug charges
-Bond said the agent did an illegal search of his bag, when squeezing it
Question:
Does a law enforcement officer’s physical manipulation of a bus passenger’s carry-on luggage violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches?
Conclusion:
7-2 for Bond
-Cantu’s search and seizure was against the Fourth Amendment
-Bond had a privacy interest in the bag
-physical invasion is more intrusive than visual inspection
Dissent:
-seeing no “reasonable expectation” that strangers would not manipulate luggage on a bus
Constitutional Importance:
Search and Seizures |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts:
-Dept. of Interior agent suspicious of Danny Kyllo growing marijuana, used a thermal-imaging device to scan his triplex
-the image was used to determine if the amount of heat from the home was consistent with high-intensity lamps typically used to grow indoor marijuana
-images shows hot areas
-obtained a warrant to search home
-showed growing marijuana
-Kyllo indicted on federal drug charges
Question:
Does the use of a thermal0imaging device to detect relative amount of heat from a private home constitute an uncons. search in violation of Fourth Amendment?
Conclusion:
5-4 for Kyllo
-device used is not general public use
-unreasonable without a warrant
Dissent:
-gathered on the outside of the home
-did not invade protected privacy—in public domain
Constitutional Importance:
Search and Seizures and relates to Katz test b/c public domain |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts:
-Christopher Drayton and Clifton Brown were traveling on a Greyhound Bus
-In FL, police officers boarded the bus as a routine interdiction effort
-officer worker back to front of bus
-officer did not inform passengers the right to refuse to cooperate
-Brown agreed the have bags checked and person
-pat down revealed hard objects similar to drug packages
-after Drayton agreed, the same thing happened
-both were arrested
-further search showed cocaine taped to leg
-charged with federal drug crimes
-Brown and Drayton said consent of pat-down was invalid
Question:
Must police officers, while searching buses at random to ask questions and to request passengers’ consent to searches, advise passengers of their right not to cooperate?
Conclusion:
6-3 for U.S.
No. The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not too cooperate and to refuse consent to searches
-although the police officer did not inform of right, he did ask for consent and gave no indication consent was required
-consent was voluntary
Dissent:
-it was suspicionless seizure, thus illegal
Constitutional Importance:
Search and Seizure in regards to officers do not need to advise passengers of their right not to cooperate |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts:
-The exclusionary rule requires that evidence illegally seized must be excluded from criminal trials
-Leon was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous tip (unreliable)
-the police applied to a judge for a search warrant based on evidence from their surveillance
-it was granted a police found large quantities of illegal drugs
-Leon was indicted for violating federal drug laws
-a judge said the affidavit was insufficient and the evidence was thus not to be allowed in court
Question:
Is there a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule?
Conclusion:
6-3 U.S.
Yes, there is an exception
-the evidence seized on a mistakenly issued search warrant could be used in court
-the exclusionary rule is not a right but a remedy to deter illegal police conduct
-In Leon, the cost of the exclusionary rule outweighed the benefits
-suppressing evidence not worth it
Dissent:
-worried this will reopen door to unlawful seizure b/c officers will abuse this with a judge
Constitutional Importance: good faith exception to illegal search and seizures |
|
|
Term
| Illinois v. Caballes (2004): |
|
Definition
Facts:
-during a routine traffic stop, a drug detection dog alerted police to marijuana in Caballes' car trunk.
-IL court convicted Caballes of cannabis trafficking
-Caballes appealed and argued the search violated Fourth Amendment
Question:
-Does the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure clause require a reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct a canine sniff during a routine traffic stop?
Conclusion:
7-2 for IL
Caballes' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated
-The Constitution did not require police to have reasonable suspicion to use a drug-detection dog on a car during a legal traffic stop
-privacy wasn't at risk b/c dog only alerted to an illegal drug
-was on exterior
Souter:
-dogs only detect things that are illegal
-can give false positive |
|
|
Term
| Georgia v. Randolph (2006) |
|
Definition
Facts:
-Scott Randolph was arrested for drug possession after police found cocaine in his home
-the police did not have a search warrant but his wife consented to the search
-Randolph was present and objected
-said search was uncons. because Randolph objected
-other side said wife’s consent was enough
Question:
Can police search a home when one physically present resident consents and the other physically present party objects?
Conclusion:
5-3 for Randolph
-when two occupants are present and one consents to a search and the other refuses, the search is not const.
-compares it to a caller at the door
Dissent:
-if he hadn’t been there, then the search would be ok
-based on good luck |
|
|
Term
| Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) |
|
Definition
Facts:
-responding to a complaint about a loud party, police arrived where they saw minors drinking outside, shouting inside
-saw a fight involving junior and adults
-officers announced presence but fighters did not hear them so they entered
-they arrested the four men for delinquency or a minor and other offenses
-trial judge refused to let evidence in court because it was warrantless
Question:
What objectively reasonable level of concern is necessary to trigger the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement?
Conclusion:
8-0 for Brigham City
-police may enter a building without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an occupant is seriously injured or threatened of injury
-cites Mincey v. Arizona—need to protect or preserve life is justification
Constitutional Importance:
Is it reasonable?? |
|
|
Term
| Miranda v. Arizona (1966) |
|
Definition
Facts:
-constitutionality of a number of instances where defendants were questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom
-joint cases
-in Viagra v. New York, petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of the right to counsel
-Westover v. United States, petitioner was arrested by FBI, interrogated and made to sign statements without being notified of right to counsel.
-California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel
-in all three suspects were questioned by police, detective or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world
Question:
Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination of their rights at the outset of their interrogation
Conclusion:
5-4 for Miranda
-prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards—to protect from self-incrimination
-need to tell right to remain silent also
-need to understand interrogation and how you can incriminate yourself
Dissent:
-society’s interest in general security is of equal weight to privileges of people
-distrust of all confessions
-majority is saying it is wrong for the police to gather evidence from accused himself
-discourages any confession at all
-this is not constitutional
Constitutional Importance:
-Fifth Amendment—prevent self-incrimination |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts:
-during questioning about a robbery he was connected to, Charles Dickerson made statements to authorities admitting that he was the getaway driver in a series of bank robberies
-Dickerson was placed under arrest
-timing of statement is disputed
-FBI and local detectives testified that Dickerson was advised of his Miranda rights and waived them before his statement
-Dickerson said he was not read them till after his statement
-government argued even if he had not been read them, the statement was voluntary and this admissible in court.
Question:
May Congress legislatively overrule Miranda v. Arizona and its warnings that govern the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation
Conclusion:
7-2 for Dickerson
No. Miranda governs the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts
-Miranda embedded in police routine
Dissent:
-majority opinion gave needless protection to “foolish confessions”
Constitutional Importance:
Fifth Amendment and self-incrimination
Sixth Amendment-Miranda rights |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts:
-Williams was arrested for the murder of a ten-year-old girl whose body was disposed of along a gravel road
-state law enforcement officials engaged in a massive search for the child’s body
-during the search, after responding to an officer’s appeal for assistance, Williams made statements to the police, which helped lead the searchers to the child’s body
-his Miranda rights were only read to him after the arrest
Question:
Should evidence resulting in an arrest be excluded from trial because it was improperly obtained?
Conclusion:
7-2 for Nix
No.
-“inevitable discovery doctrine”
-exclusionary rule did not apply to the child’s body as evidence since it was clear the volunteer search teams would have discovered the body even absent William’s statement
Constitutional Importance:
“inevitable discovery”
Sixth Amendment-Miranda rights |
|
|
Term
| Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe (2003) |
|
Definition
Facts:
-“Megan’s Law”
-persons convicted of sexual offense had to register with the DPS upon their release
-register name, addresses, photographs and descriptions on an Internet Web site
-Doe said it violated 14th Amendment Due Process Clause
-said it didn’t allow a hearing to determine present dangerousness
Question:
Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause require that persons convicted of sexual offenses subject to Connecticut's "Megan's Law" receive a hearing before the public disclosure of their registry?
Conclusion:
9-0 for Conn.
-due process did not require the opportunity to prove a fact that was not material to the State’s statutory scheme
-the law was not based on dangerousness but was based on convictions |
|
|
Term
| Hiibel v. 6th Jud. Dist. Ct. of Nevada (2004) |
|
Definition
Facts:
-Larry Hiibel was found at a car scene where police were investigating an assault
-Hiibel refused to show ID
-After 11 attempts the officer arrested Hiibel
-Nevada had a law saying if an officer asks a person’s name, they have to tell
-Hiibel challenged saying it violated his 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate and 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches
Question:
Did hiibel’s arrest and conviction violate his 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate and 4th Amendment right to no unreasonable searches?
Conclusion:
5-4 for Nevada
-based on reasonable suspicion (investigation of assault where Hiibel was nearby)
-minimally intrusive
-did not violate 5th because Hiibel did not argue that telling the office his name would incriminate him of crime
Dissent:
-slippery slope for other questions to be permitted
-could lead to discovering other crimes linked to his name
Constitutional Importance: Unreasonable Search and Seizure and Self-incrimination
Reasonable Suspicion |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts:
-first of Scottsboro cases
-9 black youths were accused of raping 2 white women
-Alabama lawyers defended them b/c they were to poor to hire counsel
-the trial was decided in one day and all were sentenced to death
Question:
Did the trials violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Does that apply to a state? yes
Conclusion:
Yes.
-defendants were not given reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel |
|
|
Term
| Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) |
|
Definition
Facts:
-Gideo was charged in FL with a felony for breaking and entering into a pool hall
-he did not have money to hire a lawyer and FL law said they did not have to give counsel when it was not a capital case
-he defended himself
-was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years of prison
Question:
Did the state court’s failure to appoint counsel violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law in the 6th and 14th Amendments?
Conclusion:
9-0 for Gideon
-he had a right to be represented by court-appointed attorney
-reviewed Betts v. Brady and overturned their previous decision
-6th Amendment’s guarantee of counsel was a right, needed for a fair trial and should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
-obvious truth
Constitutional Importance:
Due process for fair trial and right to counsel to the states |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts:
-convicted of receiving child porn through mail in violation of Child Protection Act of 1984
-he said he had been entrapped by the government into committing the rime through a series of communications from undercover agents over a 26-month period
-court of appeals said the government had carried its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Jacobson was predisposed to break the law and was not entrapped
-he ordered them the first time before law existed
-he wrote letters saying he wanted more and liked what he saw
Question:
Was Jacobson coerced into committing the crime? Or entrapped?
Conclusion:
5-4 Jacobson
He was entrapped
Dissent:
-He willingly participated and should be punished
-he ordered twice and asked for more
-government needs knowledge of predisposition
-jury was supposed to decide if he was a willing participant
Constitutional Importance:
Entrapment |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
In general the Supreme Court has followed the rule that searches are reasonable if they are based on a warrant obtained from a magistrate, who may issue the warrant only if law enforcement officials have demonstrated, through intro of evidence, that there is probable cause to believe that the search will uncover evidence of criminal activity.
--there are exceptions
-ex. incident arrest
plain view exemptions
consent to search
search vehicle with probable cause
search students under authority without warrant
hot pursuit of fleeing subject
stop and frisk--protect officers right to protect
drug testing of employees
highway checkpoint progrmas |
|
|
