https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9 en-us 2017-12-01 14:13:36 UTC 2023-04-27 17:52:15 UTC hello@padlet.com braden_andrew https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213269025 Freedom Involved: 1st amendment, free speech

Background Information: In 1965, five junior high students, including Mary Beth Tinker, wore black arm bands to school in order to protest the Vietnam War. Some teachers heard about the protest beforehand and told the students not to wear them. The students did, and they were suspended.
Constitutional Issue:  This case involves the 1st amendment, free speech
The Supreme Court questioned if " A prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?"
Decision: In a 7-2 majority the Supreme Court decided that  the Students have the right to freedom of expression and that the armband was a symbolic act of speech.
Sources: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21]]> 2017-12-05 13:35:06 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213269025 christopher_guaraldo https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213276386 Visual]]> 2017-12-05 13:49:45 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213276386 christopher_guaraldo https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213276933 Freedom Involved: 4th amendment, search and seizure
Background Information: In 1980, a high school teacher found two students smoking in the bathroom. She brought them to the vice principal, who searched one girl, T.L.O.'s purse and found marijuana, money, rolling paper, etc. T.L.O. was taken into police custody.
Constitutional Issue: This case involves the 4th amendment, search and seizure.
The Supreme answered if "The exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools?"
Decision: The rule 6-3 that search in T.L.O.'s purse was reasonable. Because of this case schools have the right to search students, without a warrant,  as long as they have a probable cause.
Sources: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21
Visual:

]]> 2017-12-05 13:50:57 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213276933 christopher_guaraldo https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213277029 2017-12-05 13:51:12 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213277029 christopher_guaraldo https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213277108 2017-12-05 13:51:23 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213277108 christopher_guaraldo https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213277626 Background Information: In 1966 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was then questioned by police officers about his involvement in a kidnapping and rape. The police finally got a written confession from Miranda. The evidence was then used at the trial. The Jury found Ernesto Miranda guilty. 
Constitutional Issue:  This case involves the 5th amendment, self incrimination.
The Supreme Court was trying to answer whether "The 5th amendment's protection against self-incrimination extends to police interrogation of suspects?"
Decision:  The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, decided that police could not use the evidence of Miranda confessing because he was not aware of his constitutional rights nor had an attorney.  This case fortunately protected  self-incrimination and also a person's right to an attorney. This case is very important to citizens now because we understand clearly that police officers are required to let each "criminal" know their rights before questioning. Also, each "criminal" must have an attorney present, even if they can't afford one, in a case.
Visual: ]]> 2017-12-05 13:52:18 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213277626 christopher_guaraldo https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213279518 Freedom Involved: 5th amendment, protection from double jeopardy.
Background Information: Blockburger had been arrested and charged for the distribution and sale of Morphine. He was tried five separate times, all with technically different charges.
Constitutional Issue: This case involves the 5th amendment, protection from double jeopardy.
The Supreme Court was trying to decide if the charges were different enough each time to not fall under double jeopardy.
Decision: Every court he appealed to decided that the five cases were different enough and the Supreme Court gave no statement involving double jeopardy.
Visual:

]]> 2017-12-05 13:55:51 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213279518 christopher_guaraldo https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213280814 Freedom Involved: 6th amendment, right to a fair trial
Background Information: Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of breaking and entering, as well as theft. He could not afford a lawyer, and the court did not give him one when he asked, leaving him practically unable to defend himself.
Constitutional Issue: This case involves the sixth amendment, the right to a fair trial.
The Supreme Court was deciding if " The 6th amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts."
Decision: In a 9-0 majority decision the Supreme Court came to a decision that the state of Florida did violate Gideon's 6th amendment. This case is very important to ensure everyone that if they are ever in a situation that involves them going to court, they will know they have a fair trial. This case established due process, which is basically a fair trial. Also, because of this case every felony is required to be given a lawyer.
Sources: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155
Visual:

]]> 2017-12-05 13:58:04 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/213280814 mckenzie_bates https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/214871239 2017-12-11 00:16:22 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/214871239 mckenzie_bates https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/215247949 2017-12-11 23:02:48 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/215247949 mckenzie_bates https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/215249312 2017-12-11 23:14:53 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/215249312 mckenzie_bates https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/215250707 2017-12-11 23:29:25 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/215250707 christopher_guaraldo https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/215255058 Freedom Involved: 1st amendment, free speech
Background Information: In 1989, the case of Poling v Murphy was argued. Dean Poling, an honors student at Unicoi County High School, ran for student council. Running for student council, Poling made a speech which degraded and used harsh language and other harsh references in his speech. The school principal, Murphy, had taken Poling out of running for student council.
Constitutional Issue: This case involves the 1st amendment, free speech.
The Supreme Court was  deciding if Poling was being deprived of his "life, liberty, and property" along with his freedom of speech in a political speech.
Decision: The Supreme Court decided that the 1st amendment rights of a student in school were unfairly taken away, in a peaceful  speech.
Sources:
https://openjurist.org/872/f2d/757/poling-v-murphy
Visual:

]]> 2017-12-12 00:14:37 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/215255058 christopher_guaraldo https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/215257306 Freedom Involved: 4th Amendment, search and seizure
Background Information: Terry and two other men were being watched by a police officer. The officer proceeded to search these men and found weapons on two of them, one being Terry. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and was sentenced to jail.
Constitutional Issue: This case was argued to go against his 4th amendment rights. 
The Court had to question if this went against his 4th amendment rights and was a violation of the protection.
Decision:  In an 8 to 1 vote, the judges ruled that the search was reasonalble and seemed to be used after a "hunch" was seen by the police officer, which gave the officer reasonable doubt and suspicion.
Visual:

]]> 2017-12-12 00:39:55 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/215257306 christopher_guaraldo https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/215258452 Freedom Involved: 4th amendment, search and seizure
Background Information: Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states.  Government spied on his onversation and charged him with 8 counts to illegal transmission.
Constitutional Issue: This case involves his 4th amendment rights. The Supreme Court had to decide "Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?"
Decision: Katz was entitled to his 4th amendment rights, which protected people not places. The evidence of the phone calls in the phone booth could not be used against him.
Visual:]]> 2017-12-12 00:52:28 UTC https://padlet.com/mckenzie_bates/p67qhg9y92n9/wish/215258452