Attorneys for Schenck challenged the constitutionality of the Espionage Act on First Amendment grounds. Freedom of Speech, Schenck's attorneys argued, guarantees the liberty of all Americans to voice their opinions about even the most sensitive political issues, as long as their speech does not incite immediate illegal action. Attorneys for the federal government argued that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to undermine the selective service system by casting aspersions upon the draft. In a 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed Schenck's conviction. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the opinion.
In this case, I believe the government took it too far because there was no warrant allowing officers to scan DLK’s home, there was no danger of losing evidence, and DLK’s fourth amendment rights were violated. First of all, using the thermal scanner in this case is considered a legal search and the officers that used it were not given a warrant. On a warrant, there are three major parts; who is being searched, where they are searching, and what is being searched for. Since officers knew who and what exactly they were searching for at DLK’s home, a warrant should have been provided. Obviously, heat radiation cannot be seen without some type of tool.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument it does protect an individual right, it is no more absolute than freedom of speech or any other right in the Constitution. No right is absolute; the government is always allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling importance. Ironically, the very first federal appellate court in recent history to hold that there was an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, the Fifth Circuit, then went on to nevertheless uphold the particular restriction that was being challenged! Mainly, that the guy was under a restraining order for domestic abuse and he wasn’t allowed to possess a gun. The court said the Second Amendment protects your right, but this regulation doesn’t violate your right.
“For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view. Under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement, the appropriateness of every warrantless search is decided on a case-by-case basis, weighing the defendant's privacy interests against the reasonable needs of law enforcement under the circumstances” (G K. Hill, 2005). Another exception to warrant requirements as it pertains to the above article is that the video released shows there was a lack of physical harm as seen on George Zimmerman. This was important to the prosecution because Zimmerman claimed Trayvon Martin attacked him and his death was a result of self defense. In conclusion, authority’s base warrants on probable cause which are only necessary in a small percentage of cases.
The trail court had denied. So then Katz appealed it to the Supreme Court, in which they upheld his conviction. Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment protect person privacy when it comes to phone conversations on a phone booth? Rule: The Fourth Amendment protects unreasonable search and seizures and follows a person and not a place. Analysis: A person should be able to have
3. According to this appeals court, what errors were made by the judge at trial? There were many errors made by the judge at this trial. First of all, to award $20 MILLION for a sexual discrimination case is absolutely unheard of. This just seemed irrational.
Running Head: CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS The Constitutional Procedures Deborah Llamas Kaplan University CJ500-01N Professor Gordon Crews March 6, 2013 The Fifth Amendment referred to as the Bill of Rights implemented because of the standard method “I Plead the Fifth” (Bill of Rights, 2008). The four basic clauses associated with the Fifth Amendment include, the grand jury clause: that no individual held responsible in justifying a capital, or either heinous crime, unless on a claim or demand by a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury Clause is an essential component because it requires a grand jury in capital cases to prevent a person charged without evidence, determined by a Grand Jury
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution involving the clause of double jeopardy states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…” This statement gives no right to the government to prosecute or punish a criminal for the same offense. Going through trial in a case is not only financially straining for both the court and the individual but also emotionally. There are three conditions necessary for a defendant to have protection under double jeopardy against a second prosecution. The earlier prosecution must progress to the point of jeopardy attachment. Second, a prosecution must then involve the same offense.
1. Congress passed a law imposing penalties for displaying "indecent" material online where children could see it. If the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently rules that the statute conflicts with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the statute is void. TRUE 2. Sandra sued her employer, Cape Inc., claiming that she was sexually harassed on the job.
The fourth amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, unless probable clause can be provided. The Arizona Immigration Law says that law enforcement officers only need a reasonable suspicion of a person to be an undocumented immigrant. Citizens of America (legal immigrants), are subjected to embarrassing and uneccassary searches if considered to “look” like an undocumented immigrant and may have some properties taken away from them since it may look like a threat to the government. The 14th Amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property based on race, ethnicity, or gender. This law should not have been passed in the first place, since it violates citizen’s right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.