# data[].attributes.body
This review was for Heller and the second amendment and his right to bear arms.

# data[].attributes.headline
The First Amendment did not protect a public school student’s right to display a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The First Amendment did not protect a public school student’s right to display a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. 

# data[].attributes.body
At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," a slang reference to marijuana smoking. Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days.

# data[].attributes.body
The court held that even if there were a violation, the principal had qualified immunity from lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Ninth Circuit cited Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , which extended First Amendment protection to student speech except where the speech would cause a disturbance. Because Frederick was punished for his message rather than for any disturbance, the Circuit Court ruled, the punishment was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the principal had no qualified immunity, because any reasonable principal would have known that Morse's actions were unlawful.

# data[].attributes.body
in this case, the District of Columbia had passed the Firearms Control Regulation Act (1975) in which said that police are the only ones that can carry firearms. in which Heller retorted that this was a violation of the Second Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
The District Court found no constitutional violation and ruled in favor of Morse. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit by a 5-4 vote, ruling that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use

# data[].attributes.headline
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

# data[].attributes.subject
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

# data[].attributes.body
¨At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, students planned to wear black armbands at school as a silent protest against the Vietnam War.¨ (Facts and Case Summary - Tinker v. Des Moines, 2020, para 1).

# data[].attributes.headline
First Amendment rights of students in U.S. public schools. 

# data[].attributes.subject
First Amendment rights of students in U.S. public schools. 

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled that the armbands were a form of symbolic speech, which is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore the school had violated the students' First Amendment rights.

# data[].attributes.body
This was a reviewing case of free speech and using profanity in public. Cohen wore a jacket that showed "F#ck the Draft".

# data[].attributes.body
The government can not incriminate and prosecute an individual for using profane vocabulary in public places.

# data[].attributes.body
The Amendment that was under review was the under review was the 8th Amendment (Freedom from the excessive bail, cruel and unusal punishments.)

# data[].attributes.body
The Evidence Presented was Scientific Evidence which came from experts in psychology, sociology, public policy, law and legal practice.

# data[].attributes.body
The Process of Descision was there were 4-5 options and they took in both sides arguments in their descision making process.

# data[].attributes.body
The 1st Amendment was under review for the students to have restriction on what they say in the school papers.

# data[].attributes.body
The verdict was Its is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty for a crime committed by a child under the age of 18.

# data[].attributes.body
(Roper v. Simmons, 2004, para. 3).

# data[].attributes.body
Verdict: Supreme Court sided with the school to restricted what is being said in school papers.

(Ayla S., Isela C., Dana R., Dynasty H., and Dominic G.)

# data[].attributes.body
The constitutional right under review: Are police constitutionally required to inform people in custody of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney?

Yes, the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require police to inform individuals in custody that they have a right to remain silent and to be assisted by an attorney. According to the Court, if the police fail to do so, a criminal court judge may rule that any statements made by the accused cannot be admitted as evidence during trial.

If pulled over by a police officer, they must advise you of your constitutional rights to remain silent. Unless you attorney tells you otherwise, do not tell the police anything except your name, if the officer fails to remind you of your rights.

# data[].attributes.body
(hazelwood school district v. kuhlmeier, 1988, para. 1).

# data[].attributes.body
Student sued high school for removing articles from school papers. About teen pregnancy and divorce which I agree for the students suing them because they are silencing valuable information that could help people who are dealing with this stuff.

# data[].attributes.body
(Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier,1988,H.L. Hall, para. 2)

# data[].attributes.headline
The Fourteen Amendment was going to separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.  

# data[].attributes.subject
The Fourteen Amendment was going to separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.  

# data[].attributes.body
The Brown decision is heralded as a landmark decision in Supreme Court history, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson which had created the "separate but equal" doctrine. In Plessy, The Court held that even though a Louisiana law required rail passengers to be segregated based on race, there was no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as the accommodations at issue were "separate, but equal."

# data[].attributes.body
Never Use Something Just Once.

Learn More Than One Trade.

Make Friends With Your Neighbors.

You Might Have To Get Your Hands Dirty.

Don't Put All Your Eggs In One Basket.

Learn The Difference Between Want And Need.

Always Keep A Sharp Eye For Good Deals.

to have a backup plan

# data[].attributes.body
(Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, para. 17)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
¨Separate but Equal¨ - Jocelyn, Luis, Elijah, Diego

# data[].attributes.body
This was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring racial segregation in public schools. The constitutional right under review was the 14th amendment. The evidence presented was the injurious effects of segregation on Black children. The supreme court ruled the separation between the children in public schools unconstitutional based on race. Segregate schools were illegal so schools had to integrate without a deadline. (Duignan, 2021, para. 2-3).

# data[].attributes.body
in the end Heller won because the Supreme court had a Depth analyses of the Amendment and found that it did protect the right to bear and own a firearm.

# data[].attributes.body
I really don't believe that anyone should get the penalty since if we allow the death penalty to continue there will probably be people that were innocent yet falsely convicted that could be executed. Also a person under the age of 18 is still not an adult and a lot of the times they do not fully understand what they are doing. A lot of times Police officers will frame someone innocent of a crime that they didn't commit just so that the community feels safe and don't feel threatened that an actual killer is still on the loose. Such cases happened with Steven Avery, Central Park 5, and Clemente Aguirre. This is why I believe that the death penalty should not be available for not just people under the age of 18, but for everyone in general.

# data[].attributes.headline
The consitutional rights under review were the fifth amendment and the sixth amendment.

# data[].attributes.subject
The consitutional rights under review were the fifth amendment and the sixth amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
These amendments state that a citizen has the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer during a trial. When Miranda was arrested, he was not aware he had those rights and thought the interrogation he went under was unconstitutional, since it forced him to incriminate himself.

# data[].attributes.body
Safe and legal abortion is a constitutional right. Roe v. Wade protects a woman's right to choose without excessive government restriction. They did rule depending what trimester the woman is in, the government can step in.

# data[].attributes.body
Earl Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit petty theft, based on a burglary that was committed between midnight and 8 A.M. on June 3, 1961, at a pool room in Panama City, Florida. The arrest was based entirely on the report of a witness that he had seen Gideon in the pool room at 5:30 A.M. on the night of the crime claiming that Gideon had a wine bottle and money in his pockets. The court declined the right to the 14 amendment due to state law which said that the only time indigent defendants could be appointed an attorney was when charged with a capital offense. This case also denied his right to the Sixth Amendment which was violated through the denial of counsel.

# data[].attributes.body
Howarth (A Marine representative) using the first amendment, the purchaser of the OMC vehicle filed suit against the produces of OMC vehicles. The reason was because they did not disclose the defects which were many. The most significant was break failure.

# data[].attributes.body
(outcome) Gideon was then sentenced to five years in prison where he kept in touch with legal resources and wrote to the U.S Supreme Court. The basis of the appeal was his Sixth Amendment rights being violated through the denial of counsel.

# data[].attributes.body
The constitutional right under this was the 5th amendment. The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. After being taken into custody 2 hours after interrogation the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. He was found guilty for a kidnapping and rape."Miranda v. Arizona." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759. Accessed 13 Sep. 2021. - Joselyn Villarreal

# data[].attributes.body
The trial ended in a 7-2 decision for Jane Roe. In the first trimester the pregnant woman and her physician are the ones to make the decision. In the second and third trimester the state can impose regulations or prohibit them entirely. (Oyez, 2021, para. 7).

# data[].attributes.body
The constitution right under this was the 5th amendment. The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody.  They had told him that anything he says can be used against him in court of law After these warnings were given, a defendant could knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement."Miranda v. Arizona." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759. Accessed 13 Sep. 2021

# data[].attributes.body
The amendment under review was the 14th amendment. This gives the right to privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
The constitutional right to personal privacy, which was protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments, was under review in the Roe V. Wade case.

In the case, the evidence presented was that a woman's right to choosing to have an abortion is their own private decision and therefore falls under the right of privacy.

The process of the decision consisted of the judges deciding that the case was not moot as pregnancy is usually a reason for a not moot decision, analyzing both arguments, and then deciding their verdict.
("Roe v. Wade", n.d., pg. 1)

# data[].attributes.headline
The evidence presented in court was the written confession forced by police

# data[].attributes.subject
The evidence presented in court was the written confession forced by police

# data[].attributes.body
After being arrested and interrogated for two hours Miranda was forced to give a written confession so it could be used against him in court. Both the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury at the trial. -Emiliah M.

# data[].attributes.headline
Other court cases were brought up during the process.

# data[].attributes.subject
Other court cases were brought up during the process.

# data[].attributes.body
Several other cases came up that went similarly. The criminals were caught and interrogated into a confession. The Supreme Court realized that these were unjust and reversed the judgement of these cases.

# data[].attributes.body
Supreme Court judges decided wether or not Miranda's confession was rightfully written. Four justices (the majority) said that the interrogation was unconstitutional, and created a new law that made police officers remind people of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney as they were arrested.
As for Miranda's trial, he was retried for his original crime of kidnapping and r*pe, and was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. His confession was not brought up as evidence in the second trial.
("Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona", n.d., para. 1, 2, 9, 10).

# data[].attributes.headline
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke(1978)- Jovana E, Harleen K, Lillyanna M, Zohal S

# data[].attributes.subject
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke(1978)- Jovana E, Harleen K, Lillyanna M, Zohal S

# data[].attributes.body
This case was about the university using racial "quotas" in its admission process, the fourteenth amendment Equal Protection Clause. Some of the evidence presented was a white applicant got denied twice to the medical school even though MCAT scores, GPA, and benchmark scores were significantly higher than some of the other accepted applicants. The process of the decision was a 5-4 decision saying the university did consider race(in this case whites) as a factor, they had to go through judicial, administrative, or legislative. The outcome of this case from the Supreme Court ruled that a university's use of racial "quotas" in its admissions process was unconstitutional.
Citation: (McBride, 2006 para1)
(McBride, 2006, para 2)
(McBride, 2006, para 3)

# data[].attributes.body
The California Supreme Court agreed, finding that the quota system explicitly discriminated against racial groups and holding that "no applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race." The medical school, ordered to shut down its quota system, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1978.

# data[].attributes.body
Alexandra Romo

The outcome of this court case, collapsed in the economic in 1930. It was one of the most defining traumas of the 20th century. For many Americans, the New Deal, launched by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, remains the standard for how the federal government should respond to a major national emergency.

The lessons of the Great depression By Lizabeth Cohen

# data[].attributes.body
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel.

# data[].attributes.body
Rove V. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion effectively legalizing and procedure across the United States.

("Rove v. Wade" , 2019, para.1).

# data[].attributes.body
("Gideon v. Wainwrigh," n.d., para. 1).

# data[].attributes.body
Mapp v. Ohio was a 1961 landmark Supreme Court case decided 6–3 by the Warren Court, in which it was held that Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applied to the states and excluded unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in state criminal prosecutions. This decision overruled Wolf v. Colorado and reversed the conviction of appellant Dollree Mapp."Mapp v. Ohio.

Dollree Mapp’s home in Cleveland, Ohio was forcefully entered by police officers who believed that a suspected bomber was inside the house. While searching her home, officers found pornographic books. Later, Mapp was prosecuted under an Ohio statute for knowing possession of lewd and lascivious material. She was convicted even though the prosecution was unable to produce a valid search warrant.

The majority held that all evidence obtained unconstitutionally, without a search warrant, is inadmissible in state criminal prosecutions. Such evidence was already barred in federal courts, but the majority agreed that the exclusionary rule for unlawfully seized evidence applied to state courts as well, through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court insisted that the exclusionary rule had to apply to the states, or else the Fourth Amendment was essentially useless.

Citation: (Wex Definitions Team, 2020, para.1.2.3).

# data[].attributes.body
Together with No. 106, Alabama Power Co. et al. v. United States et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  James O'Malley, Jr., argued the cause for appellants in No. 78. With him on the briefs were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Walter J. Myskowski, Sheila H. Marshall, and Alfred E. Froh. Charles J. McCarthy argued the cause for appellants in No. 106. With him on the briefs were Arthur L. Winn, Jr., J. Raymond Clark, and Richard J. Hardy.  Deputy Solicitor General Springer argued the cause for the United States et al. in both cases. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General McLaren, Howard E. Shapiro, Edward M. Shulman, William A. Imhof, Robert W. Ginnane, and Arthur J. Cerra. Hugh B. Cox argued the cause for appellees Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Co. et al. in both cases. With him on the brief were William H. Allen and Michael Boudin.  John F. Donelan and John M. Cleary filed a brief in No. 106 for the National Industrial Traffic League as amicus curiae urging reversal.  PER CURIAM.  The judgments are affirmed by an equally divided Court.  MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.  Page 400 U.S. 73, 74

# data[].attributes.body
Molitor, (B.M), Fifth Amendment Miranda Rights, Findlaw.com, August 12, 2020. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/miranda-rights-and-the-fifth-amendment.html

ge title

, from URL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The term "Miranda Rights" comes from a historic 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case called Miranda v. Arizona. The court held that if the police want to question (interrogate) a person in police custody, they must tell them of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incriminating statements and their right to an attorney.

The following is an overview of your Fifth Amendment Miranda rights, including when police must read you your rights and what happens when they fail to do so.

What Are Your Miranda Rights?

The Miranda warning outlines the following rights:

1. You have the right to remain silent

2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law

3. You have the right to an attorney

4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you

This means you can choose not to answer an officer's questions and may request an attorney.

When Are Miranda Warnings Used?

While TV shows and movies often show officers giving the Miranda "warning" when they arrest someone, this is not always the reality. A police officer or other official must, by law, tell you the full Miranda warning before custodial interrogation starts. This type of interrogation happens when you are in police custody (when you have been arrested) and are being questioned. It can also be called "adversarial interrogation."

Police do not always need to warn you about your rights during the arrest or while you are waiting at the jail. Simply being arrested or detained by police (in custody) does not mean you will hear the Miranda warning. You will hear it before the interrogation starts. If you don't, law enforcement may have to throw out anything said in the interrogation.

In any case, it is advisable to stay silent to avoid saying anything that might make you look guilty whether you hear the warning or not. (Note that you may need to provide identification and answer basic questions.)

Fifth Amendment Miranda Rights at a Glance

Miranda rights are rooted in the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. Petitioner Ernesto Miranda confessed to a violent crime after two hours of police interrogation and signed a statement that he confessed: "with the full knowledge of [my] legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." However, he was never explained these rights.

The Court ruled that the interrogation was coercive in nature and that he wasn't informed about his right to an attorney. Therefore, they concluded, he didn't voluntarily waive these rights when he signed the statement because he didn't understand his rights. Had he retained legal counsel, he probably wouldn't have been so forthcoming during the interrogation.

What if the Police Fail to Advise Me of My Miranda Rights?

When police officers question a suspect in custody without first giving the Miranda warning, any statement or confession made is presumed to be in voluntary, and can't be used against the suspect in any criminal case. Any evidence discovered as a result of that statement or confession will likely also be thrown out of the case.

For example, suppose Dan is arrested and, without being read his Miranda rights, is questioned by police officers about a bank robbery. Unaware that he has the right to remain silent, Dan confesses to committing the robbery and tells the police that the money is buried in his backyard. Acting on this information, the police dig up the money.

When Dan's attorney challenges the confession in court, the judge will likely find it unlawful. This means that not only will the confession be thrown out of the case against Dan, but so will the money itself because it was discovered solely as a result of the unlawful confession.

Ask a Criminal Defense Attorney About Your Fifth Amendment Miranda Rights

If you believe that your Miranda rights have been violated, this can have a significant impact on your case and may even lead to a dismissal of any charges against you. That's why it's crucial to have a strong criminal defense lawyer in your corner. If you have important questions about criminal law or need representation, get started today by finding an experienced criminal defense attorney near you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fifth Amendment Miranda Rights - FindLaw

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Miranda rights are rooted in the Fifth Amendment and require police to inform anyone they detain or arrest that they have the right to an attorney and can remain silent. Learn about this and more at FindLaw's Criminal Rights section.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 (7-2 decision)

# data[].attributes.subject
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 (7-2 decision)

# data[].attributes.body
Taney became best known for writing the final majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which said that all people of African descent, free or enslaved, were not United States citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal court.