●The Court does not require warnings if a person is only held in custody without being questioned or is onlyquestioned without being arrested.○In Miranda, the Court found the combination of custody and interrogation sufficientlyintimidating to require warnings before questioning.●Miranda Warnings:○You have the right to remain silent.○Anything you say can be used against you in court.○You have the right to talk to a lawyer of your own choice before questioning.○If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, a lawyer will be provided without charge.●The Court declared that allgovernments ―national, state, and local ―have a duty to inform suspects ofthe full measure of their constitutional rights.○“Announced a constitutional rule” that Congress could not undermine through legislation.●The Exclusionary Rule (Mapp v. Ohio).○Mapp v. Ohio:■Main Ideas:●An Ohio court found Dolree Mapp guilty of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegalsearch of her home for a fugitive.●The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed her conviction, and she appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.○Her attorneys argued for a reversal based primarily on freedom of expression, contendingthat the First Amendment protected the confiscated materials.■Ohio had convicted Mapp illegally; the evidence should have been excluded.■Legal Standards:●The exclusionary rule:the judicial rule that states that evidence obtained in an illegal search and seizurecannot be used in trial.○Under the umbrella of the Fourth Amendment.25
Subscribe to view the full document.
○Required all levels of government to operate according to the provisions of the FourthAmendment; failure to do so could result in the dismissal of criminal charges against guiltydefendants.●The Court used the decision in Mappto give meaning to the constitutional guarantee againstunreasonable search and seizures and justices declared that “all evidence obtained by searches andseizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [by the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court.”●Right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade).○Griswold v. Connecticut:■Main Ideas:●The Court struck down a seldom-enforced Connecticut statute that made the use of birth control devicesa crime.●Griswoldestablished the principle that the Bill of Rights as a whole creates a right to make certainintimate, personal choices ―zone of personal autonomy that is protected by the Constitution.■Legal Standards:●Unspecified protections within the Bill of Rights within the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendmentscreate a zone of privacy and that zone is protected by the Ninth Amendment and is applicable to the stateby the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.
Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern
I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.
University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern
The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.
Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern
Ask Expert Tutors
You can ask 0 bonus questions
You can ask 0 questions (0 expire soon)
You can ask 0 questions
(will expire )