Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Background Summary and Questions

Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. A Phoenix woman was kidnapped and raped. She identified Miranda in a police lineup. Miranda was arrested, charged with the crimes, and questioned by the police for two hours. The police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. The Fifth Amendment states that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . .” The Sixth Amendment states that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”In 1965, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Miranda’s case. At the same time, the Court agreed to hear three similar cases. The Court combined all the cases into one case. Since Miranda was listed first among the four cases considered by the Court, the decision came to be known by that name. The decision in Miranda v.Arizona was handed down in 1966.

1 –  Additional information on the case found at “Wikipedia.com”  - Miranda v. Arizona – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 - The 5th Amendment states:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

3 – The 6th Amendment states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have theAssistance of Counsel for his defence. 

4 – Additional reading to help you at “about.com”  - Miranda: Rights of Silence 

Assignment

Questions to Complete:

1)    What rights of the accused does the Fifth Amendment protect? The Sixth Amendment? 

2)    If the police had informed Ernesto Miranda of these rights, do you think he might have done anything differently? 

3)    Individual rights must be balanced against the values of society at large. For instance, the right to free speech must be balanced against our desire for an orderly society. This is why demonstrations, while protected by the First Amendment, can have certain restrictions placed on them. In Miranda, what values or goals of society must be balanced against the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel? 

4)    You are probably learning about the rights of the accused in a government or history class. Some would argue that it is the individual’s responsibility to know what his or her rights are under the Constitution, and the government can assume that accused persons know their rights without informing them after they are arrested. Do you think the government should have to inform each individual who is arrested of his or her rights? Why or why not?

In addition to this I would like for you to print out and complete the following chart to hand in:

 Controversy Over the Court’s Decision, Miranda v. Arizona, Landmark Supreme Court Cases

 

I would also like a one page typed reflection paper on “Miranda Rights. “

 

 

 

Kelo v. City of New London

Kelo v. City of New London
At least to myself, this was a fascinating case as it has to do with the ability for the governments on any level, be it federal, state or local to seize private property.  Eminent Domain is a legal right under the constitution for a U.S. Government on any level to seize private property so long as they pay the owner for that property. The government will do this when it needs the property for something else that serves the greater good of the community.
Eminent Domain has traditionally been used only when the need arose for something that would serve this greater good of the community. For example, a city may decide that they need to widen a highway or build a bridge because there is too much traffic.  In order to do so they need the property that several homes are already on.  The city will pay the owners of those homes what the homes are worth and pay them for the land in order to build the bridge or widen the highway.  It is also important to note that the people have no say in the matter.  
In 2005 the Supreme Court heard a case concerning Sussette Kelo’s complaint against the city of New London, Connecticut.  Her argument was that while the government has always had the right to eminent domain, that the writers of the constitution created eminent domain only so that the property would be taken to create public constructions.  Kelo argued that eminent domain was never intended for what the city of New London wanted.  New London wanted to take people’s property and sell it to someone else so that they could create shopping malls and condominiums that would be privately owned.The Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain was intended for either case.  
The court decided, much to public outcry, that a government does have the ability to take property from one citizen and give it to another.  The reasoning they gave was that the property could be used to create something that would generate more tax dollars.  A shopping mall creates more jobs and generates more spending and tax dollars than your house does.  Since tax dollars are used by governments to provide for the public the shopping mall is better for the public than your house.
To explain it in another way, if Donald Trump wants to buy your home to create apartment buildings on your land he has the right to do so since his buildings will be taxed more than your home. This is what the Supreme Court decided in 2005.  

Wikipedia Link: Kelo v New London at Wikipedia
New York Times article: States Curbing Right to Seize Private Homes by John M. Broder  

Assignment
I would like detailed comments about this case. Your reflection on this case should focus on what the the framers of the constitution meant when they wrote “eminent domain” into the Constitution. Is the decision reached in the Kelo case what they had in mind? There are many states that would like a Constitutional amendment to limit eminent domain. Is the Kelo case one where the Supreme Court would reverse their decision down the road? What does this make you consider as a future home owner? Did you know that the Kelo case allows the government to force you to sell your property to the owners of a sports team so that a stadium can be built? Try to think about the true impact of this case and comment on it in your blogs.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Background of the case

Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a political demonstration during the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, in 1984. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration and of certain companies based in Dallas. They marched through the streets, shouted slogans, and held protests outside the offices of several companies. At one point, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag.

When the demonstrators reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. During the burning of the flag, demonstrators shouted “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.” No one was hurt, but some witnesses to the flag burning said they were extremely offended. One witness picked up the flag’s burned remains and buried them in his backyard.

Johnson was charged with violating the Texas law that prohibits vandalizing respected objects. He was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. He appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, but he lost this appeal.The Texas Court of Criminal appeals would then see his case. This was the highest court in Texas that would see Criminal Appeals. That court overturned his conviction, saying that the State could not punish Johnson for burning the flag because the First Amendment protects such activity as symbolic speech.

The State had said that its interests were more important than Johnson’s symbolic speech rights because it wanted to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity, and because it wanted to maintain order. The court said neither of these state interests could be used to justify Johnson’s conviction.

The court said, “Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol . . .” The court also concluded that the flag burning in this case did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace.

The State of Texas asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case. In 1989, the Court handed down its decision

Sourced from Texas v. Johnson (1989) at Wikipedia

After reading the account of this case I would like for you to ask yourself how far the freedom of speech and expression is protected. Follow the next link to a page on the landmarkcases.org site and answer the questions. Review your answers. You will be asked to determine whether or not something is protected through the freedom of symbolic speech. Then you are asked to explain your rationale. Your rationale is your reason for making your decision. In your own blog I would like for you to post a reflection on this assignment on what you learned and your opinions on freedom of speech and the First Amendment.

Assignment Page is located at: Symbolic Speech at LandmarkCases.Org

New Jersey v T.L.O. (1984)

New Jersey v T.L.O. (1984)

Two students were found smoking in the girls bathroom. One student confessed but the other, T.L.O. (her initials), denied smoking. In fact, T.L.O. claimed she did not smoke at all. The school Assistant Principal then proceeded to search T.L.O.’s purse. In the purse he found Marijuana in small bags, rolling paper, a large amount of cash and a list of names who owed T.L.O. money. The police were summoned and T.L.O. was arrested. T.L.O. was convicted and through the appeals process the case eventually went to the Supreme Court. T.L.O. claimed that the search of her purse violated her Constitutional rights. The Court ruled against T.L.O. setting new standards for school officials. The Court ruled that school officials may search a student under “reasonable suspicion.” The standard is less than that required of police therefore giving school officials much broader search powers under the fourth amendment.

The Fourth Amendment states that the people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”   In short, in the United States, a person is not allowed to be detained and searched unless there is probable and immediate cause for suspicion or without the use of a warrant. 

Assignment:  The question regarding this case is whether or not the court correctly interpreted the fourth amendment and the constitution in allowing the school to have conducted such a search. What are your thoughts on the case? Click to the following link on landmark cases. Please read the case as also presented here and address all five questions within your blog.

1 – Link to Landmark Cases with the questions.
2 – Wikipedia Entry for the Case for additional reading and an alternate presentation.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) - Students Rights

Kathy Kuhimeier and two other journalism students wrote articles on pregnancy and divorce for their school newspaper. Their teacher submitted page proofs to the principal for approval. The principal objected to the articles because he felt that the students described in the article on pregnancy, although not named, could be identified, and the father discussed in the article on divorce was not allowed to respond to the derogatory article. The principal also said that the language used was not appropriate for younger students. When the newspaper was printed, two pages containing the articles in question as well as four other articles approved by the principal were deleted.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Hazelwood School District did not violate the First Amendment right of the students. The Court ruled that School officials need not tolerate speech which is inconsistent with the school’s basic educational mission. The Court distinguished this case from the Tinker decision (school officials could not punish students for wearing armbands in protest of the Vietnam war “students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate”) because the Tinker case involved a student’s personal expression. This was, instead, a school newspaper, and as such could reasonably be perceived to bear the “imprimatur” of the school. They justified this because the publication of Spectrum was a part of the curriculum, i.e., it was in the curriculum guide as a part of the Journalism course, it was taught during school hours by a faculty member, the students received grades and academic credit, the faculty advisor exercised control over the publication, and the principal had to review it. The school’s policies did not reflect an intent to expand the students’ rights by converting a curricular newspaper into a public forum. The court further added that the principal’s fears were reasonable: he was concerned that the students’ identities could not be assured, that the privacy interests of boyfriends and parents were not adequately protected, and that parents mentioned in the divorce article were not given an opportunity to defend themselves.

Source: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) 

Additional Reading: Wikipedia Entry on Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

This blog assignment:  Summarize the basic idea of this case.  Do you agree or disagree with the arguments as well as the outcome of the case?  State whether or not freedom of the press extends into a school setting?  Obviously in this case it did not.  Should it?  Why?  Blog your comments about this case. 

DO NOT COMMENT ON MY BLOG – YOU MUST WRITE ABOUT THIS ON YOUR OWN BLOG

Tinker and Freedom of Speech and Expression

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/

 Example….

 Summary of the Supreme Court Case/article

 My Opinion

Why the case is important to myself and others.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!