# data[].attributes.body
http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/is-%E2%80%9Cstop-and-frisk%E2%80%9D-legal/
http://jacobbtinkervdesmoine.weebly.com/about-the-case.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.emaze.com/@AFIQLILR/texas-vs.-johnson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/search?q=terry+vs+ohio&safe=active&ssui=on

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.haikudeck.com/new-jersey-vs-tlo-education-presentation-Nq16BKD8jB

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/miranda-v-arizona/

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/gideon-v-wainwright/

# data[].attributes.body
http://opentrolley.com.sg/Book_Detail.aspx?EAN=9781155457604
https://padlet.com/preston_nichols/null

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155
http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/gideon-v-wainwright/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/201

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/83-712
https://www.haikudeck.com/new-jersey-vs-tlo-education-presentation-Nq16BKD8jB

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-155

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21

# data[].attributes.body
The freedoms of the first amendment
speech, religion, establishment, and exercise

# data[].attributes.body
( 1962 - 1965)

Gideon was accused of breaking and entering a pool room and stealing money and alcohol and then when he when to court he did not have an lawyer and he asked for the judge to appoint him one and he said no.

constitutional issues

The case involved the right to a lawyer

Does the 6th amendment's right to a lawyer apply to defendant in a criminal case .

decision

The U.S. Supreme Court decided that yes a defendant in a criminal case.

This case showed that the 6th amendment applies to everyone .

Yes this case expanded the 6th amendment it showed that it applies to everyone no mater what.

Did it restrict the freedom?

2 visuals that clearly relate to the case

# data[].attributes.body
Right to a speedy trial by impartial jury, must be told of charges, must be provided a lawyer

# data[].attributes.body
(1969 - 1970)

Benton was charged with burglary and larceny a jury found him guilty of burglary but not larceny he appealed to petit jury and found him guilty and then was charged with double jeopardy.

constitutional issues

The freedom of not being able to be tried for the same crime twice( DOuble Jeopardy ).

Did Benton's second case violate his 5th amendment.

decision

The U.S. Supreme Court decided that Benton's second case violated his 5th amendment and the case decisions were overturned.

The case showed that your rights are supported and your rights are

Yes the case protected the freedom it made sure that he would not get tried twice

No it did not restrict the freedom

2 visuals that clearly relate to the case

# data[].attributes.body
(1965 - 1967)

Police went to miranda's house and arrested him and took him to the station they questioned him and he confessed to the crime but he was not read his rights and did not know that he did not have to confess.

constitutional issues

The case involved the protection of testifying against yourself.

Does a suspect being questioned by the police have his/hers 5th amendment.

decision

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decided that the 5th amendment protect against self incrimination there for the prosecutors can not use anything that was said without him knowing his safeguard's.

This case defined the amendment by making it that the police have to tell them their rights and if they don't they can't use the evidence  obtained.

Yes this case protected the freedom and made sure that everything must be done lawfully.

No it showed that people can use this right when they need to.

2 visuals that clearly relate to the case

# data[].attributes.body
You cannot be tried  for the same crime twice, you do not have to testify against yourself

# data[].attributes.body
(1967 - 1969)

There was three men that were thought to be planning on robbing a store and a policeman out of uniform stopped them and search them he found guns and arrested them.

constitutional issues

The case involved protection of illegal search and seizure

Did the policeman have a good reason to search them?

decision

The supreme court decided that there was a good reason for the search and it was legal.

The case showed that police  only need a little bit of suspicion to search you.

no the case showed that less is needed to search and seize.

Yes this case restricted the freedom because it made it so that people can get searched because of a little suspicion

# data[].attributes.body
(1981-1986)

Two High school Girls wear caught smoking cigarettes in the bathroom they were sent to the  principles and he searched one of the girls purses and found drugs.

constitutional issues

This case involved her protection of illegal search and seizure.

Does the exclusionary rule apply to school officials when searching students bags?

decision

The supreme court could not decide and asked the parties to.

The case showed that the freedom has not yet been defined or pushed to the limit.

No the case did not expand or protect the freedom it made the freedom seem undefined.

no it did not restrict the freedom it showed that thee freedom is known

# data[].attributes.body
No search and seizure without
good reasoning and a warrant

# data[].attributes.body
(1988-1990)

George lee johnson burned an american flag as a protest against reagan administration policies.

constitutional issues

This involved his freedom of speech.

The court had to decide if burning the american flag was supported by the first amendment?

decision

The court decided that burning the american flag is an extension of the first amendment.

This case showed that the government can't limit an expression because people think it is offencive or disagree with it.

The case expanded the freedom to the point that others don't agree with it.

No it did not restrict the amendment it expanded it.

# data[].attributes.body
(1967-1969)

Students that went to Des Moine high school decided to wear black armbands to show their support to the truce in the vietnam's war and the school created a policy against wearing black armbands .

constitutional issues

This involved the students freedom of speech.

Does the school's policy against black bans violate the student freedom of speech ?

decision

The case showed that pure speech is protected as long as it does not interrupt yours or others education.

the case protected to 1sy amendment because the students did not interrupt or cause problems.

no this case did not restrict the freedom.