Court Case Project by Teagan Quinn Brandt

Tinker v Des Moines

2016-12-01 15:21:46 UTC

In 1968, students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam war and were suspended from the school for doing so. Parents sued the school because they believed the students’ rights were violated.
When this reached the Supreme Court, the question concerned the 1st Amendment. "Was suspending the students for protesting by wearing black armbands violating their right of expression?"
The Supreme Court decided YES it did violate their rights.
This case set the precedent that the use of symbolic speech is protected in schools, as long as it does not interfere with the learning process. (expand)

Bethel School District v Fraser

2016-12-01 15:48:16 UTC

In 1986, in a school assembly, a student named Fraser used innuendos and was suspended because of a school rule that prohibited proliphic language.
The Supreme Court had to answer this question "Was it out of bounds for the school to prohibit lewd language and suspend the kid based on the 1st Amendment?"
The Supreme Court Ruled NO, the school was protected, the student was not.
Therefore, this case set the precedent that lewd speech can be prohibited by schools because it does not align with the values of education. (restrict)

New York Times Company v United States

2016-12-01 15:52:43 UTC

In 1971, President Nixon tried to keep various newspapers from publishing classified information about the United States actions in Vietnam. He claimed he wanted to stop publication to protect national security.
The Supreme Court had to ask, "Did Nixon trying to keep the newspapers from publishing 'classified information' violate their first amendment rights such as freedom of press?"
It was decided YES this did violate their freedoms. And this case set the precedent that only information that directly inhibited the safety of American forces would not be allowed to be published. (restrict)

New York Times Company v United States

2016-12-04 14:34:46 UTC

New Jersey v T.L.O.

2016-12-04 14:40:08 UTC

In 1985, a principal confronted a student for smoking in a school bathroom. They searched the student’s bag and found cigarettes, marijuana, and a lot of money in $1 bills. They called the police on the student.
The Supreme Court had to answer the question "Was searching the student’s bag without a 'probable cause' a violation of the students 4th Amendment rights?"
The Supreme Court ruled NO, and set the precedent that schools have the right to search students belongings if they have “reasonable suspicion” versus “probable cause.” So, rather than having direct evidence, a teacher can merely suspect a student to be doing something, and be able to search their bags.(expand)

New Jersey v T.L.O.

2016-12-04 14:44:00 UTC

Mapp v Ohio

2016-12-04 14:45:26 UTC

In 1961, a woman was arrested when the police was searching her house for a fugitive, and they found “obscene materials."
The Supreme Court had to answer the question concerning the 1st and 4th Amendments, "Can materials gained while violating the 4th Amendment be used in a criminal court case?"
They decided NO, materials gained through illegal search and seizure CANNOT be used in any court at any time. (restrict)

Mapp v Ohio

2016-12-04 14:49:00 UTC

Terry v Ohio

2016-12-04 14:49:38 UTC

In 1968, a policemen was watching Terry and two other men in what he thought was a “stick up”. The policemen searched them all and found concealed weapons.
The question the Supreme Court had to ask was "Was searching those three men in violation of the 4th Amendment?"
The Court decided NO, it’s not illegal if the items found can be used as evidence, and if the police acts on more than a “hunch” that something is wrong. (expand)

Terry v Ohio

2016-12-04 14:55:08 UTC

Miranda v Arizona

2016-12-04 14:56:04 UTC

In 1966, Miranda was charged for a crime but he was not informed of his rights and was subject to self-incrimination because of that.
The Supreme Court had to answer the question "Was failing to inform Miranda of his rights a violation of the Constitution?" (his 5th Amendment rights)
The Court ruled YES, an officer cannot properly interrogate a subject unless they are informed of their rights beforehand. (restrict)

Miranda v Arizona

2016-12-04 14:59:13 UTC

United States v Lara

2016-12-04 14:59:37 UTC

In 2004, Lara was arrested for public intoxication on a native american reservation and assaulted an officer. He was tried for assault in the native american courts, and then in federal courts. He claimed that it was double jeopardy.
The Supreme Court had to answer this question concerning the 5th Amendment, "Is it double jeopardy for someone to be tried in native american courts, and then in federal courts?"
The Court ruled YES, it was double jeopardy. This expanded the freedom saying that native american courts had the same rights as federal courts.

United States v Lara

2016-12-04 15:02:00 UTC

Benton v Maryland

2016-12-04 15:05:42 UTC

In 1969, Benton was convicted for two crimes, but he claimed that conviction was unfair because the jury was unfair. He wanted a fair trial but then claimed he could not be tried for the same conviction, double jeopardy.
The Supreme Court had to ask "Was trying to put Benton on trial for his other crime double jeopardy?" (5th Amendment.)
The Court ruled YES, double jeopardy applied to these cases. (expand)

Benton v Marlyand

2016-12-04 15:08:26 UTC

Gideon v Wainwright

2016-12-04 15:09:32 UTC

In 1963, Gideon was charged for robbing a pool room, but he was tried without a lawyer and he could not afford one. He claims that this was depriving him of his liberty, and not a fair trial.
The Supreme Court had to ask this question concerning the 6th Amendment, "Do the 6th amendment rights also apply to convicts in the state courts?"
The Supreme Court ruled YES, all accused people in court have the right to a lawyer, AKA have the right to a fair trial so they don’t have to defend themselves. (expand)