Pre-Law: Constitutional Law

Facts of the Case:

After witnessing John W. Terry and two other men repeatedly passing a store window and talking, a police officer in Cleveland, Ohio, became suspicious that they were scouting the establishment for a robbery. The policeman came up to them, introduced himself, and searched their outer garments (frisk). He discovered Terry and another man carrying concealed weapons. Terry was found guilty of carrying a concealed weapon. He claimed his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search.

Issue:

Did the officer’s stop and frisk of Terry violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Decision:

In a decision that established an exception to the Fourth Amendment's requirements for a warrant and probable cause, the Supreme Court (8-1) declared that stop and frisk was constitutional and established the "reasonable suspicion" standard, which permits officers to stop and perform a limited search for weapons if they have specific and articulable facts that suggest a person may be armed and dangerous.

Citation:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Facts of the Case:

While looking for a fugitive, police in Cleveland, Ohio, broke into Dollree Mapp's house without a warrant. They discovered pornographic materials during the search, which was against Ohio law. Although Mapp claimed that the search infringed upon her Fourth Amendment rights, she was found guilty based on this evidence.

Issue:

Did the use of illegally obtained evidence in state courts violate the Fourth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Decision:

The exclusionary rule, which was previously only applicable in federal cases, was extended to state courts by the Supreme Court's decision (6-3) that evidence gathered through unlawful search and seizure cannot be used in state courts. By guaranteeing that illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in federal or state prosecutions, this ruling reinforced Fourth Amendment protections.

Citation:

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

Facts of the Case:

Before President John Adams' presidency ended, he appointed several justices, including William Marbury, to the Court. However, when Thomas Jefferson took office, his Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the commissions. Marbury and others petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Madison to provide the documents.

Issue:

Did Marbury have a legal right to his commission, and did the Supreme Court have the authority to order its delivery?

Decision:

Marbury had a right to his commission. However, the Court also held that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus in this context, was unconstitutional. The case established three major presidents: the Supreme Court is not a court of original jurisdiction, no branch of the government can expand or take away power from the other, and the most important power of the Supreme Court is judicial review.

Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

Facts of the Case:

Mr. Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with felony breaking and entering a pool hall with the intent to commit a crime in the state of Florida. When he appeared in court, he could not afford a lawyer and asked the judge to appoint him one as he stated it was a Constitutional right. The court denied his request on the basis that they only appointed lawyers for capital cases. He had to represent himself, leading him to be found guilty.

Issue

 Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?

Decision:

Yes, In an unanimous decision the court ruled that states are required to provide attorneys to defendants who cannot afford them. These are constitutional rights found in the 6th amendment and applied to states through the 14th amendment. Criminal defendants have the right to an attorney if they can’t afford one.

Citation:

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

Facts of the Case:

Mr. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, and charged with rape and kidnapping. The police interrogated him for two hours, and he later confessed to the crime. That confession was used in court, and he was convicted. Mr. Miranda was never informed of his right to an attorney or his right to remain silent before the interrogation.

Issue

Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

Decision:

The court ruled that the statements could not be used in court unless the defendant was informed of their rights. This ruling established Miranda rights: the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in court, and the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Therefore, law enforcement must inform suspects in custody of their constitutional rights before an interrogation.

Citation:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Facts of the Case:

Clarence Brandenburg was convicted under Ohio’s Criminal Syndicalism statute after he made a speech at a Klan rally. His speech included derogatory remarks towards the government and implied revenge. The rally was recorded and they were carrying firearms and burning a cross.

Issue

Does Ohio’s Criminal Syndicalism law violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments by criminalizing mere advocacy of violence without a clear incitement to imminent lawless action?

Decision:

The court ruled in favor of Brandenburg, holding the Ohio Law violated the first and fourteenth amendment.The court established the Brandenburg Test to determine when speech is unprotected, as long as the speech does not cause immediate violence. Or incite violence.  The Ohio law was overly broad because it punished mere advocacy of illegal action at some undefined future time rather than imminent lawless action. Therefore, it violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

Citation:
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, June 9, 1969