Court Cases by Jordan Jose Quizhpi https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j cases that are important for the project en-us 2017-12-11 18:17:20 UTC 2017-12-13 00:30:27 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/icons/Cake.png Texas v Johnson- 1984 jordan_quizhpi https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215182242 Freedom involved: Symbolic Speech
Background- Johnson burned the american flag, fined $2,000 and served jail time 
Question from the court
Is burning the flag constitutional and protected under the 1st amendment ?
Answer: Yes, burning the flag is protected under the 1st amendment.
How did this decision change our understanding of this amendment?
Symbolic speech is involved can be involved, as longs as you don't harm anyone physically.

]]> 2017-12-11 19:15:53 UTC https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215182242 Tinker v Des Moines- 1968 vincenzo_iacoboni https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215258082 Freedom involved: 1st amendment- right to protest.
Background: A group of high school students protested the Vietnam war by wearing black armbands. The principle found out about the protest and had a meeting with the students. He told the students if any of them wore the armband on school property, it would result in a suspension. The next day, some of the group of students wore the armband and they got suspended. Through their parents, they sued the school. The school then took the issue to court. 
What did the court have to decide?: Does a prohibition symbolic protest violate students first amendment rights?
What they decided: Yes, a prohibition on symbolic speech violates the students first amendment rights.
How did this decision change our understand of this amendment?: Anywhere you go, you can form a peaceful protest. 

]]> 2017-12-12 00:48:16 UTC https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215258082 Smith v Maryland -1979 jordan_quizhpi https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215261740 Background- Smith robbed a woman and threatened over the phone. Police used a pen register without a warrant
4th amendment was used because of illegal search and seizure
Question that the court has used: did it violate the 4th amendment?
Answer: No, it did not violate the 4th amendment, because it only believes if it infringed on the individual's policy
This now understands that a police officer does not need a warrant to use a pen register.
  ]]> 2017-12-12 01:30:01 UTC https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215261740 N.J vs T.L.O- 1984 jordan_quizhpi https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215263566 a little girl was caught with someone smoking with a girl, both went to the principal's office and the principal had searched through T.L.O's purse and found cannabis and lighters and pictures of students also a drug dealer. 
What amendment was involved? The 4th amendment was involved, using the illegal search and seizure.
Question: Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools?
Answer: No, it did not. It's only necessary if it's only under the circumstances that other kids would be in harm
This now issues that principals have authority to search a student, only through reasonable circumstances ]]> 2017-12-12 01:48:52 UTC https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215263566 Morse v Fredrick vincenzo_iacoboni https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215629720 Freedom involved: 1st amendment- freedom of speech.  
Background: Joseph Fredrick was holding up a sign that said "Bong hits 4 jesus" during an olympic torch relay through Alaska. He was there because of a school-supervised activity. Morse, the school principle, told Fredrick to put the sign away and Fredrick refused. Morse then took the sign away from Fredrick and suspended Fredrick for 10 days for drug use. Fredrick thought this violated his 1st amendment rights.
What did the court have to decide?: If Morse violated Fredrick's 1st amendment rights.
What they decided:   
No, Morse did not violate Fredrick's 1st amendment rights. 
How did this decision change our understanding of this amendment?:
In school, you free speech is limited.  

]]> 2017-12-12 21:50:50 UTC https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215629720 Blueford v Arkansas- 2012 jordan_quizhpi https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215637273 Alex's girlfriend baby was having trouble breathing and was rushed to the hospital, then later passed away and Alex had been charged with manslaughter, capital murder. but then later went to court with this and was found innocent, but then later on a new court case was established and it was for the same crimes, which he thought was double jeopardy because he was found innocent, so he went to the Supreme Court about it.
the 5th Amendment was involved with Double Jeopardy.
Question:  Did the jury forewoman announcements of unanimous votes on capital and first-degree murder constitute acquittals under the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibiting Arkansas from retrying Blueford on those charges?
Answer: No, because there was no clear necessity for a mistrial.
This now understands that it's not a double jeopardy, because no other official statement about the case was official between the justices, o therefore it wasn't a double jeopardy 
 ]]> 2017-12-12 22:32:25 UTC https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215637273 Terry v Ohio- 1968 vincenzo_iacoboni https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215639296 Freedom involved: 4th amendment- search with out warrant.
Background: A police man stopped 3 men for no reason. Terry was one of the 3 men stopped. Terry was found carrying a concealed weapon and was sent to prison for 3 years. 
What did the court have to decide?: Did the search violate the 4th amendment?
What they decided:  
The police had a valid reason to stop the 3 men. 
How did this decision change our understanding of this amendment? If the police find you suspicious in any way, shape, or form, they can stop you.

]]> 2017-12-12 22:46:40 UTC https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215639296 Miranda v Arizona vincenzo_iacoboni https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215641445 Freedom involved: 5th amendment- self discrimination 
Background: Miranda was arrested and questioned about a rape and kidnapping. After 2 hours of interrogation, Miranda wrote a written confession that admitted to the evidence. Afterwards, police admitted that they didn't inform Miranda on his rights. 
What did the court have to decide?: Does the 5th amendment protect self discrimination to this extent.  
What they decided: 
No, from then police would have to say "you have the right to remain silent".
How did this decision change our understanding of this amendment? We know our rights before being accused.
]]> 2017-12-12 23:03:56 UTC https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215641445 Gideon v Wainwright jordan_quizhpi https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215642085 Gideon had robbed a bar, stealing appliances and was later went into a civil court and the judge denied him a lawyer and ended up losing the case and was sent to prison.Then did some research and in the constitution, it said that the court needed to get him lawyer since he was poor.
the 5th amendment was involved, needing a lawyer since he couldn't afford one.
Question: Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? 
 The court held that in  the constitution, it was required for state courts to appoint lawyers for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own.
This prompts that anyone can get a lawyer, if they cannot afford one.



]]> 2017-12-12 23:11:11 UTC https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215642085 Ashcraft v Tennessee- 1944 vincenzo_iacoboni https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215645227 Freedom involved: 5th amendment- self discrimination.
Background: Zelma Ashcraft was found dead on the side of the road. The police questioned the husband. He was taken to the interrogation room and was interrogated for more then 36 hours without break. That lead to the confession of the murder. 
What did the court have to decide?: Does the 5th amendment protect that long of a interrogation? 
What they decided:
No, the 5th amendment does not protect that. 
How did this decision change our understanding of this amendment?: You can only interrogate someone for so long. ]]> 2017-12-12 23:46:32 UTC https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215645227 Citations vincenzo_iacoboni https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215646986 "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District." Oyez, 4 Dec. 2017, www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21.

"Terry v. Ohio." Oyez, 5 Dec. 2017, www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67.

"Blueford v. Arkansas." Oyez, 6 Dec. 2017, www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-1320.


“Facts and Case Summary - Morse v. Frederick.” United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-morse-v-frederick.

"Miranda v. Arizona." Oyez, 7 Dec. 2017, www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759.

“Ashcraft v. Tennessee.” Casebriefs Ashcraft v Tennessee Comments, www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/police-interrogation-and-confessions/ashcraft-v-tennessee/
]]> 2017-12-13 00:06:10 UTC https://padlet.com/jordan_quizhpi/4ap6x94r97j/wish/215646986