https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/l1j07qxs9y74 en-us 2017-03-31 15:13:05 UTC 2024-12-02 02:00:46 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/l1j07qxs9y74/wish/164034546 1. The state cases didn't apply with the 4th amendment because it was for federal cases not state.
2. For mapp: police had no warrant search when mapps house was searched. of the 4th amendment did not limit the police on local and federal levels, police can search whenever and wherever.
For the state: search with proper authority or not, the 14th amendment does not forbid the evidence obtained by unreasonable search. 10th amendment, the states have the rights to operate a separate court room.
3.The Mapp v. Ohio case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961. In itsdecision, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that evidence obtained while violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution-which prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures"-is inadmissible in state courts
4. justices used  the 4th amendment to find favor in the ]]> 2017-03-31 17:40:12 UTC https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/l1j07qxs9y74/wish/164034546 https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/l1j07qxs9y74/wish/164034602 1) In 1964 New York times published a full page ad that was paid for by civil rights activist which criticized the Montgomery police department for it's cruel treatment towards protesters.

2) The Montgomery police department argued that some of the descriptions in the ad were inaccurate and false accusations so they sued New York Times for publishing false information.

3)  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspaper. The courts said the Newspaper had the right to publish any statement because its protected under the first amendment and there was also no proof that what was published was inaccurate information.

4) This case was a landmark for the Supreme court because it established the malice standard which is defined as "knowledge that the information was false". ]]> 2017-03-31 17:40:24 UTC https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/l1j07qxs9y74/wish/164034602 https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/l1j07qxs9y74/wish/164034939 1. In 1969 racism was still very much alive and the KKK continued hate crimes and rally's. A rally was held by KKK leader Clarence Brandenburg in Cincinnati, Ohio. This rally was then broadcasted on news stations nationwide. He was arrested for forming and speaking at this rally.

2.Brandenburg was accused of leading the broadcast of a hateful speech. He claimed innocent because his freedom of speech was protected under the First Amendment. The opposing side claimed that he did not have the right to do so.

3. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brandenburg because his speech did not imply violence or put anyone around the rally in danger, it was simply hateful speech that protected some. The First amendment protected him.

4. The Brandenburg V Ohio case made it publicly known that all hate speech, yet wrong, is not illegal. It showed the First Amendments true meaning, that all speech is protected unless it implies immediate violence or unlawful action.

]]> 2017-03-31 17:41:47 UTC https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/l1j07qxs9y74/wish/164034939 https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/l1j07qxs9y74/wish/164039109 1. In the early 60's an attorney was not provided in cases
2. Gideon believed that there should be a attorney provided for every case not just the big ones, which is what wainwright was arguing.
3. They went against Gideon because of the 6th admemdent 
4. he ended  up getting 5 years in prison 

]]> 2017-03-31 17:58:34 UTC https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/l1j07qxs9y74/wish/164039109 https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/l1j07qxs9y74/wish/164040468 2017-03-31 18:03:06 UTC https://padlet.com/m_j_ryan724/l1j07qxs9y74/wish/164040468