Civil Rights Unit 8. Civil Rights…defined Rights granted by the government to protect individuals from arbitrary or discriminatory treatment Examples:

Civil RightsUnit 8

Civil Rights…defined

• Rights granted by the government to protect individuals from arbitrary or discriminatory treatment

• Examples:• Bear arms• Due Process

• Amendments 4, 5, 6, 8

4th amendment

• The right of the people 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.

• “One evening a student left a campus party, carrying a bottle of gin. A university officer spotted the student outside a dorm, arrested him for possessing liquor, and asked to see his identification. The student asked the officer to wait while he retrieved his wallet from his dorm room. The officer, however, insisted on accompanying the student to his dorm room, where he leaned against the door jamb and the student went in. From the doorway, the officer thought he saw some marijuana and paraphernalia typically associated with drug use. Without the student’s consent, and without a warrant, the officer entered the room seized the material, and arrested the student for drug possession.”• Epstein and Epstein. Constitutional Law for a Changing America.

Reasonable Searches and Seizures

1. Searches based on a warrant2. Searches incident to an arrest3. Searches to insure that evidence is

not lost.4. Searches based on consent.5. Searches to ensure the safety of the

law official.6. Searches in places that merit low

levels of constitutional protection.

During a routine traffic stop a Wyoming Highway Patrol officer noticed a hypodermic needle in the driver’s shirt pocket. The driver admitted using the needle to take illegal drugs. The officer then searched the passenger compartment for contraband, removing and searching the purse of a passenger. The officer found drugs in her purse and arrested her, too. The passenger asked the trial court to suppress all evidence found in her purse, arguing that it was illegal to search the purse of a passenger for whom the police had no independent probable cause.

• Law enforcement officers may lawfully search the belongings of all passengers in a car where there is probable cause to believe there is evidence of criminal activity

• Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999).• In Wyoming v. Houghton, the Supreme Court held

that when an officer has probable cause to search a car, this inspection also includes the belongings of passengers in the car because they may contain the suspected items the officer has reason to believe are in the car. Without any distinction carved out as to ownership, the Court in Ross concluded that “when there is probable cause to search for contraband in a car, it is reasonable for police officers…to examine packages and containers without a showing of individualized probable cause for each one.” The Court also stated that there is a reduced expectation of privacy with passengers and their belongings when they transport them in the public.

Searches with a warrant

Illinois v Gates (1983)• Question: Can a warrant be issued on an

anonymous tip?• Precedence: Aguilar-Spinelli test required a

reliable source for a warrant• Ruling: Search was legal• ”Totality of the circumstances” test…

• A warrant can be issued if there is a:• Nontechnical, but factual and practical

consideration of everyday life

Requirements for a warrant

Generally include:

• A probable cause• A defined location to be searched• A timely and orderly execution of the

warrant• Guarantee that only specified evidence

will be taken• Unless contraband is found

Warrantless searches

Chimel v. California (1969)• Question: Was the warrantless search

legal? • Ruling: Search was illegal

• The house was not under immediate control of the suspect

Warrantless searches

Cupp v. Murphy (1973)• Question: Was the warrantless seizure

legal? • Ruling: Search was legal

• Evidence could be lost

Warrantless searches

Terry v. Ohio (1968)• Question: Was the warrantless search & frisk

legal? • Ruling: Search was legal

• Safety of the officer

U.S. v. Ross (1982)• Question: Was the warrantless search of the

car legal? • Ruling: Search was legal

• Contraband in plain view gives probable cause

Plain View Doctrine

Requirements:1.Officer must be legally allowed to be present2.No technological advancements may be used3.Discovery must be by chance• Defined by:

• Arizona v. Hicks (1987)• Horton v. California (1990)

Requirements for a warrantless search

1. S & S can be done immediately2. S & S can be done only on an area

under immediate control of the suspect3. S & S must relate to:

• Incident to an arrest• Preserve evidence• Safety of an officer• Plain view doctrine

Student searches

New Jersey v. TLO (1985)• HISTORY:

• TLO caught smoking in the bathroom• Purse searched by administrator• Discovered drug paraphernalia

• Ruling: S & S was legal• School needs “reasonable suspicion” to search• Scope of search must be “reasonable” based

on situation• Need to maintain discipline

Student searches

Vernonia School v. Acton (1995)• History: Drug testing student-athletes• Ruling: S & S was legal

• Athletes: Right to Privacy reduced• Agreed to regulations of team

• Minimal invasion of privacy• Important need for search• Deter drug use• Safety of athletes

5th amendment

• No person shall…be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy…no shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

5th amendment

• Issues:• Double Jeopardy• Self-incrimination• Exclusionary rule• Eminent domain

Self-incrimination

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)• History:

• Police obtained from Miranda a signed confession of rape• Miranda was not made aware of his 5th amendment rights

• Question: • Did the interrogation without notification of rights violate the

5th?

• Ruling: Yes…• A person must be informed of their rights prior to any

interrogation

Double Jeopardy

US v. Halper (1989)• “This Court protects against three

distinct abuses: • a second prosecution for the same offense

after acquittal; • a second prosecution for the same offense

after conviction; • and multiple punishments for the same

offense.”

Exclusionary Rule

Evidence obtained from an illegal search is inadmissible in court.

Defined by:• Weeks v. US (1914)• Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

6th amendment

• In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation…and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense

6th amendment

• Issues:• Speedy & public trial• Right to a jury• Awareness of rights• Right to counsel

Right to counsel

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)• History:

• Gideon was charged with stealing• He requested (and was denied) a lawyer be provided

• Question: • Did the denial of counsel violate Gideon’s 6th amendment

rights?

• Ruling: Yes…• "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not

luxuries.“ (Justice Black)

Civil Rights Movement Desegregation of schools

Brown v. Board of Ed (1954)• Court mandates that schools desegregate

• Racial segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority. (www.oyez.org)

Brown v. Board of Ed II (1955)• Chief Justice Warren urged localities to

act…"with all deliberate speed." (www.oyez.org)

• Impact…”Little Rock Nine” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSdLPNQSa4k

Civil Rights Movement 24th Amendment &

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

• Called for by Kennedy; supported by King

Actions:• Outlawed discrimination in voting & employment• Outlawed segregation of public facilities involved in

interstate commerce• Authorizes Justice Depart to enforce laws• Withholds fed funds from discriminatory state

programs

Civil Rights Movement Implementation

Swann v. Mecklenburg Bd. Of Ed (1971)History• 14,000 black students attended schools that were either totally

black or more than 99 percent black. Question• Were federal courts constitutionally authorized to oversee and

produce remedies for state-imposed segregation?Ruling:• The use of mathematical ratios or quotas were

legitimate "starting points“• No rigid guidelines could be established concerning

busing of students• (www.oyez.org)

• Outlaws de jure and de facto discrimination

Civil Rights MovementAffirmative Action

Univ of Cal. v. Bakke (1978)• History:

• U of Cal reserved 16 spots for black students• Bakke was rejected from admission to med school even

though he had higher scores than the blacks admitted

• Question: • Did the universities admission policies violate the 14th

amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

• Ruling:• Strict quota systems are unconstitutional• Race can play a factor in admission

Women’s MovementThe Early Years

Background…• (1848) Seneca Falls Convention calls for:

• Abolition of slavery• Temperance• Education for women• Equal rights of citizenship

• (1890) Women’s suffrage movement begins during Progressive era• Results in the 19th amendment (1920)

Women’s Movement1960s & 1970s

Focus is on…Equality in the workplace; politics; judicial system

Major events:• Kennedy’s Commission on the status of Women (1961)• Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique (1963)• Civil Rights Act (1964)

• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) • Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) (1972)• Title IX (1972)

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

History:• State regulations prevented contraception advice and

distribution to married people

Ruling:• 1, 3, 4, & 9th amendments create right to

privacy therefore the regulations are unconstitutional

Why the ERA Failed

“Equality of rights…shall not be denied…on account of sex.” (ERA, 1972)

1. Southern Resistance• Conservative values

2. Tactics of Demonstrators• Radical and Offensive

3. Conservative Female Opposition• Challenge Traditional Role

4. Women in the Draft

Kathrine Switzer 1967 Boston Marathon

“The reason other women weren't there is that they hadn't had the same opportunities that I'd had.”

Title IX

No person in the United States, shall on the basis of sex, be

excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or

be subjected to discrimination under any educational

program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE IX

Prong 1: Substantial Proportionality: Athletic participation opportunities for men and women must be substantially proportionate to their undergraduate enrollments.

Prong 2: History and Continuing Practice: Institutions must show a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the interests of the underrepresented gender, usually female athletes.

Prong 3: Accommodating Interests and Abilities: Institutions must meet the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer female students than male students participating in sports.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

History:• Norma McCorvey (Roe) sought an abortion in Texas

Question:• Does the Constitution protect the right to have an abortion?

Ruling:…Trimester test (7-2)• 1-3 Months: States cannot regulate• 4-6 months: States can regulate in the

interest of the health of the mother• 7-9 months: States can regulate to protect

the potentiality of human life

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

History:• PA restrictions (parental consent & notification of the

father)

Question:• Are the restrictions permitted under Roe?

Ruling: “Undue Burden” Test (5-4)• Regulations will not be allowed if they pose an

“undue burden” a on women’s right to privacy.• "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking

an abortion before the fetus attains viability.”

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)

History:• Nebraska banned partial birth abortions

Question:• Does the ban violate 14th amendment rights?

Ruling: Yes (5-4) 1. Law is too vague.2. Law bars a procedure deemed as safe by a

“significant body of medical opinion.”3. Law does not recognize that the procedure

can be used in an emergency to protect the health of the mother.

Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)

History:• Congress banned partial birth abortions in 2003

Question:• Does the ban violate 14th amendment rights?

Ruling: NO (5-4)• No “undue burden” on women.• Has an exception for the health of the mother.• The new act is not vague.

The Supreme Court in 2000 &2007

StevensScalia Kennedy Souter Ginsberg BreyerThomas

Rehnquist

Roberts

O’Connor

Alito

Bush Appointees

Died 2005 Retired 2006