Constitutional Law Weel 4-6

Test on Wednesday 5/14

Free Exercise Clause – Key Concepts

• Prohibits government from enacting policies that burden religious practices

• Government regulate BELIEF , but can regulate ACTION

• Sincerely Held Belief: Protection applies if belief is genuine, even if not factually true

• Strict Scrutiny Test (applied in many cases):

  • Law must serve a Compelling Government Interest

  • Law must be Narrowly Tailored to achieve that interest

  • Must be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal

Reynolds v. U.S. (1879) – Regulating Action vs. Belief

• Facts: Mormon defendant in Utah practiced polygamy, which was advocated by his religion

• Law: Federal law prohibited polygamy

• Issue: Does the Free Exercise Clause protect religiously motivated actions like polygamy?

• Ruling: Conviction upheld

• Key Principle:

  • Government can’t regulate belief, but can regulate religiously motivated conduct

  • Example: You can believe in human sacrifice, but acting on it = murder

  • Established the belief-action distinction

📿 You can believe in extra rings, but the law only lets you wear one — actions have limits

Sherbert v. Verner (1963) – Free Exercise & Strict Scrutiny

• Facts:

  • Defendant , a Seventh-day Adventist, refused to work on Saturday (Sabbath)

  • She was fired and denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina

• Issue: Did the denial violate her Free Exercise rights?

• Ruling: Yes – Denial burdened her religious practice

• Key Principle:

  • If a law burdens religious exercise, government must meet Strict Scrutiny:

    • Must have a Compelling Government Interest

    • Law must be Narrowly Tailored

  • South Carolina failed to show a compelling reason

• Outcome: Defendant won

🧠 “No Work, No Pay, Not Okay”

Wisconsin v Yoder(1972)

• Facts:

  • State law required school attendance until age 16

  • Religious group stopped at 8th grade to focus on vocational training

  • Parents were fined for not sending kids (ages 14 & 15) to high school

• Issue: Did the law burden religious practice?

• Ruling: Yes – Law violated the Free Exercise Clause

• Key Principle:

  • Law placed a significant burden on religious lifestyle

  • No compelling government interest in requiring two extra years of school

  • Applied the Strict Scrutiny Test

• Outcome: Conviction reversed

🧠 "Yoda says: 'Learn trade, they must. Burden religion, law must not.'"

Employment Division v. Smith (1990) – Neutral Laws & Free Exercise

• Facts:

  • Two individuals fired for using peyote (a hallucinogenic drug) during religious ceremonies

  • Denied unemployment benefits due to drug use

• Issue: Did denying benefits violate Free Exercise rights?

• Ruling: No violation

• Key Principle:

  • If a law is neutral and generally applicable, Strict Scrutiny does NOT apply

  • State's ban on peyote applied to everyone, regardless of religion

  • Religious motivation does not excuse violation of neutral law

🧠 "Peyote? Not an Exempt Code-y."

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) – Targeted Religious Practice

• Facts:

  • Church leased land in Florida, practiced animal sacrifice

  • City passed ordinances banning religious animal slaughter, but allowed it for food

• Ruling: Unconstitutional – ordinances targeted religion

• Key Legal Rule:

  • Law was not neutral and not generally applicable

  • Strict Scrutiny applied:

    • Must have a compelling government interest

    • Must be narrowly tailored

  • City failed both prongs → law struck down

🧠 “If food okay, faith can’t be slayed.”

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) – Flag Salute & Religious Freedom

• Facts:

  • State law required students to salute the flag

  • Jehovah’s Witnesses objected on religious grounds—saluting was idolatry

  • Children were expelled for refusing

• Ruling: Unconstitutional

• Key Principles:

  • Violated Free Exercise Clause – law burdened religious belief

  • Also violated Free Speech – government can’t force you to speak or act against conscience

  • First Amendment protects freedom of belief and expression

🧠 "Forced salute? Belief and speech refute."

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) – Religious Rights of Corporations

• Facts:

  • Family-owned business objected to providing contraception in employee health plans

  • Claimed it violated their religious beliefs

• Ruling: In favor of the business

• Key Principles:

  • Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), if law substantially burdens religious exercise → use Strict Scrutiny

  • Government must show:

    • Compelling interest

    • Least restrictive means

  • Court said: Other, less restrictive alternatives existed (e.g., government or third parties could provide contraception)

  • ACA mandate was not narrowly tailored, so it violated religious freedom

🧠 "Belief over Briefs – strict test relief."

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) – Religious Freedom & Neutrality

• Facts:

  • Cakeshop owner refused to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to religious beliefs

  • Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled he violated state anti-discrimination law

• Issue: Did enforcing the law violate the Free Exercise Clause?

• Ruling: Yes – law applied in a way that was not religiously neutral

• Key Principles:

  • Free Exercise Clause violated due to hostility toward religion by the commission

  • Government must remain neutral toward religion

  • Also raised concerns about compelled artistic expression against one’s beliefs

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023) – Artistic Expression & Free Exercise

• Facts:

  • Web designer wanted to create wedding websites, but not for same-sex couples due to religious beliefs

  • Challenged Colorado’s anti-discrimination law

• Issue: Can the state force her to create custom websites that violate her religious beliefs?

• Ruling: Unconstitutional – violates 1st Amendment Free Exercise & Free Speech

• Key Principles:

  • Government can’t compel artistic expression that contradicts one’s religious convictions

  • This was about custom, expressive work, not general services

  • Builds on Masterpiece Cakeshop – reaffirms protection of religious

🧠 "Code with soul? State can’t control."

and expressive freedom

Second Amendment – Right to Bear Arms

• Text Start: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

• Protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms

• Originally:

  • Militia = Able-bodied free male citizens

  • Armed with muskets, bayonets to defend their community

• Today:

  • Equivalent = National Guard

  • Use of advanced weapons & training

• Key Debate: Individual right vs. collective (militia-based) right

🧠 “From muskets to missions – rights with conditions.”

Second Amendment – Two Components & Interpretations

• Two Components:

  1. "A well regulated Militia" – Tied to security of a free state

  2. "Right of the people to keep and bear arms" – May imply individual right

• Key Interpretive Debate:

  • Read together = Right tied to militia service

  • Read separately = Supports an individual right to bear arms

• Legal Philosophy Split:

  • Literal/Historical: Based on original intent (militias, 1700s context)

  • Living Constitution: Adapts to modern society and technologies

• Modern Considerations:

  • Rise of high-capacity, destructive weapons

  • Does technology change the scope or meaning of the right?

🧠 "Militia or Me? Depends how you see."

Historical Background - England

• Militia Tradition:

  • Englishmen kept arms and trained locally

  • Members were common citizens (butchers, blacksmiths), not professional soldiers

• Limits in England:

  • Firearm ownership restricted to the wealthy (property requirement)

  • No public carry of firearms in many cases

• Shift in Power:

  • Monarch created a standing army

  • Controlled by the King, used to suppress political dissent and later colonial resistance

• U.S. Fear of Tyranny:

  • Framers saw the standing army as a threat to liberty

  • Inspired the idea of a citizen militia as a check on government power

🧠 “From blacksmith to backlash – arms for liberty, not monarchy.”

Colonial Experience & Anti-Tyranny Principles

• Distrust of a Professional Army:

  • Framers feared a standing army under control of a King or future President

  • Believed: “Whoever pays them, controls them” – risk of oppression

• Preference for Militias:

  • Local citizens, not professionals

  • Less likely to turn on their own communities

• Civic Duty:

  • Bearing arms = responsibility to protect property and community

• Colonial Law:

  • Some colonies required property owners to own firearms and ammo

🧠 “Power to the people, not the payroll.”

Colonists' Concerns

• Revolutionary War Reality:

  • A professional army was necessary to defeat Britain

  • Unorganized militias couldn’t handle long, intense warfare

• Post-War Concerns:

  • Colonists feared keeping a standing army in peacetime

  • Believed it could become a tool of federal tyranny

• State Constitutions:

  • Many linked the right to bear arms with the need for a well-regulated militia

  • Militia seen as a safeguard against federal abuse of military power

🧠 “Army to win, militia to check in.”

Drafting the Second Amendment – George Mason’s Proposal

• Concern: A state militia would be useless against the federal government if the people were disarmed

• Early proposed amendment stated:

  • “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…”

• Emphasized:

  • Militia = body of the people

  • Right to bear arms was essential to protect liberty and resist tyranny

• Final version of the Second Amendment was reworded by the Senate, but kept the core idea:

  • Arms + militia = security of a free state

🧠 "Disarmed people, powerless state."

United States v. Miller (1939) – Limits on the Second Amendment

• Facts:

  • Federal law banned sawed-off shotguns

  • Defendant challenged the law as a violation of the Second Amendment

• Ruling:

  • Law upheld – No constitutional violation

• Key Principle:

  • Second Amendment protects weapons that have a militia/military use

  • Since sawed-off shotguns were not standard militia weapons, they weren’t protected

  • Court linked the right to bear arms with the preservation of a well-regulated militia

🧠 "No militia mission, no gun permission."

Collective Right Interpretation – Second Amendment

• Focuses on the phrase: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

• Right to bear arms is tied to participation in a militia

• Historical context: Concern over the federal government maintaining a standing army

• Early drafts emphasized militia service as the reason for gun ownership

• Not a personal right to own guns for self-defense or recreation

• Emphasizes state-level defense and public security

🧠 “Militias guard, not my backyard.”

Individual Right Interpretation – Second Amendment

• Defines the militia as the “body of the people” – ordinary citizens

• The phrase “right of the people” appears elsewhere in the Constitution (1st, 4th Amendments) and refers to individual rights

• Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms belongs to each person

• Not limited to military service – includes self-defense and personal protection

• Became the dominant legal interpretation in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

🧠 “People means me – not just we.”

Presser v. Illinois (1886) – Collective Right / State Regulation

• Illinois banned private armed parades and drills

• Arrested member of a socialist militia group

• Ruling:

  • Second Amendment limits only the Federal Government (not states/localities)

  • States may regulate public armed assemblies

  • Recognized the right to arms as connected to collective militia duties

🧠 “Only D.C. can’t see your militia spree.”

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) – Individual Right Established

• D.C. banned handgun ownership at home

• SCOTUS ruled: Violation of the Second Amendment

• Key Holding:

  • Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a gun for self-defense

  • Focus on historical meaning + grammar of the amendment

  • First major recognition of personal ownership rights

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Your home, your gun – the right has begun.”

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) – Applied to States

• Chicago handgun ban challenged

• SCOTUS: Incorporated the individual right to bear arms to the states via the 14th Amendment

• Relied on Due Process Clause

• Self-defense = fundamental right, deeply rooted in American tradition

• Overturned Presser

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Your city, your say – the 2nd applies all the way.”

NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen (2022)-– Right to Bear Arms in Public

• NY required “special need” for concealed carry

• SCOTUS ruled: Unconstitutional

• Expanded Second Amendment to include public carry

• Introduced textual and historical analysis standard

• Individual right doesn’t stop at your door

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Beyond your gate, the 2nd still relates.”

U.S. v. Rahimi (2024) – Limits on Dangerous Individuals

• Federal law banned firearm possession under domestic violence restraining orders

• Rahimi argued Bruen protects him

• SCOTUS (8–1): Law is constitutional

• Court softened strict historical test

• Held that dangerous individuals can be restricted from owning guns

• J. Thomas dissented: wanted strict adherence to Bruen

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Guns for threats? Not in these sets.”

Second Amendment – Textual Approach (Justice Thomas)

• Interprets the Second Amendment based on its plain language

• “Right of the people to keep and bear arms” includes both private and public use

• No distinction between having a gun at home vs. in public

• Focus on what the text says, not what courts think is reasonable

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Text is king – no room for balancing.”

Second Amendment – Historical Tradition Test (Justice Thomas)

Valid gun regulations must be deeply rooted in American history

Look to laws from 1791 (Bill of Rights) or 1868 (14th Amendment)

If no historical precedent, modern law is likely unconstitutional

Rejects modern policy arguments and interest balancing

Memory Trick:

🧠 “No roots? No boots.”

(If a law isn’t historically grounded, it doesn’t stand.)

Third Amendment – Quartering of Soldiers

• Text: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner…”

• Protects citizens from being forced to house soldiers

• Rooted in English Bill of Rights (1689)

• Colonial Experience:

  • During French and Indian War, English troops were housed in private homes

  • Soldiers remained after war, increasing tensions

• Framers feared this could lead to a standing army acting as a police force

🧠 “No boots in your living room.”

Fourth Amendment – Basic Protections

• Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures

• Applies to:

  • Persons

  • Houses

  • Papers

  • Effects

• Warrants require:

  • Probable cause

  • Oath or affirmation

  • Specificity: must describe the place, persons, and items to be searched/seized

Fourth Amendment – Historical Origins

• Inspired by British abuses:

  • Use of general warrants to search colonists’ homes without cause

  • Warrants were open-ended and often never expired

• Merchants challenged British customs searches in 1761

• Attorney James Otis:

  • Argued “A man’s home is his castle”

  • Though he lost, the argument shaped the American view of privacy

• Framers wanted to prevent arbitrary government power

Fourth Amendment – Text vs. Evolving Interpretation

• literalist/Strict View:

  • Protects only the listed areas: persons, houses, papers, effects

• Living Document View:

  • Expands to modern forms of privacy (phones, GPS, digital data)

  • Law evolves with technology and social norms

• Courts ask:

  • Is there a “reasonable expectation of privacy”?

Olmstead v. U.S. (1928) – Literal/Textual Approach

• iWiretaps used outside the home (phone lines, not the physical house)

• SCOTUS ruled: No search or seizure

• Focused on textual reading: No physical intrusion into the home, persons, papers, or effects

• Technology not covered under the literal text

• Warrantless wiretap = legal

Memory Trick:
🧠 “No break, no take – no 4th to stake.”

Katz v. U.S. (1967) – Privacy Over Property

• FBI wiretapped a phone booth, not Defendant home

• SCOTUS overruled Olmstead

• Ruled: 4th Amendment protects people, not just places

• Introduced the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy test

• Even in public, if privacy is expected (like closing a booth door), it’s protected

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Shut the booth, guard the truth.”

California v. Ciraolo (1986) – Aerial Surveillance OK

• Police flew over fenced backyard and photographed marijuana from 1,000 ft

• SCOTUS ruled: No reasonable expectation of privacy from public airspace

• What’s visible to the public from above isn’t protected

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Fence below, eyes still know.”

Florida v. Riley (1989) – Helicopter View OK

• Helicopter flew at 400 feet and saw marijuana through open roof panels

• SCOTUS ruled: Public could legally be in that airspace

• Observation was in “plain view”

• No search occurred

Memory Trick:
🧠 “From the sky, it’s not a pry.”

Florida v. Jardines (2013) – Curtilage Protected

• Police brought a drug-sniffing dog to the front door (curtilage)

• Used info to get a warrant → found marijuana

• SCOTUS ruled:

  • Use of the dog = a search

  • Entering curtilage without a warrant = trespass

  • Violated reasonable expectation of privacy

• Conviction reversed

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Sniff my steps? Bring a warrant next.”

California v. Greenwood (1988) – Trash on the Curb

• Police searched garbage left on the curb after receiving a tip

• Found drug evidence → used it to get a warrant and arrest

• SCOTUS upheld conviction

• Key Principle:

  • No reasonable expectation of privacy once trash is placed outside the curtilage

  • Public exposure = no protection

Memory Trick:
🧠 “If it hits the curb, it’s up for the verb.”
(Once trash hits the curb, the police can act on it.)

Kyllo v. U.S. (2001) – Thermal Imaging & Tech Limits

• Police used a thermal imaging device to detect heat from home (suspected grow op)

• No physical entry, but info used to get warrant

• SCOTUS reversed conviction

• Key Principle:

  • Using technology not in general public use to gather info from inside the home = search

  • Expanded the 4th Amendment to new tech

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Heat sneak? That’s a privacy breach.”

U.S. v. Jones (2012) – GPS & Physical Trespass

• Police put a GPS tracker on suspect’s car with a warrant for 10 days in D.C.

• Collected data beyond 10 days & in Maryland

• SCOTUS ruled: Warrantless tracking = unconstitutional

• Key Principle:

  • GPS tracker = physical trespass on an “effect”

  • Movement = sensitive data → must be carefully limited

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Track my Jeep? You went too deep.”

Carpenter v. U.S. (2018) – Cell Site Data & Privacy

• Police got 127 days of cell site data from Sprint with a court order, not a warrant

• Used data to tie Carpenter to robberies

• SCOTUS reversed conviction

• Key Principle:

  • Even when held by a 3rd party, cell phone location data over time is highly private

  • Probable cause + warrant required

  • Modern digital life demands stronger privacy protection

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Track my phone? Get a warrant of your own.”

Warrantless Searches – Permitted Exceptions (4th Amendment)

Warrantless searches are allowed in specific, well-established exceptions:

1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

   • Search of person and area within immediate control

   • Justified by concern for officer safety & preservation of evidence

   • Chimel v. California: Limits search to immediate area (not whole home)

2. Plain View Doctrine

   • Officers may seize evidence that is:

     • In plain view

     • Immediately recognizable as contraband

     • Officer is lawfully present

3. Plain Feel

   • During a lawful Terry stop, contraband may be seized if its identity is immediately apparent through touch

4. Exigent Circumstances

   • Action needed to prevent:

     • Injury, escape, or destruction of evidence

5. Public/Officer Safety – Terry v. Ohio (1968)

   • Allows stop and frisk if officer has reasonable suspicion

   • Purpose: Detect weapons or prevent immediate threat

6. No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

   • Includes:

     • Open fields

     • Trash left for collection

     • Prison cells

7. Consent

   • Must be voluntary and from someone with authority

8. Automobile Exception

   • Police can search a vehicle if they have probable cause

   • Includes containers, trunks, etc.

Memory Trick: “CAPE STOP”

🧠 Use CAPE STOP to remember the 8 warrant exceptions:

C – Consent

A – Automobile exception

P – Plain view / plain feel

E – Exigent circumstances

S – Search incident to arrest

T – Terry stop (public/officer safety)

O – Open/no expectation of privacy

P – Protective sweep/immediate control

Chimel v. California (1969) – Limiting Search Incident to Arrest

• Police had an arrest warrant, not a search warrant

• Searched entire house, garage, attic → found coins (evidence)

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Unconstitutional – search incident to arrest is limited to the person and area within immediate control

  • Justified by officer safety and preservation of evidence

  • Cannot use arrest as an excuse for full house search

Memory Trick:
🧠 “No full roam just near your dome.”
(Police can only search around the person—not the whole home.)

Arizona v. Hicks (1987) – Limits to Plain View

• Police entered under exigent circumstances (gun fired through floor)

• Found weapons and mask = lawfully seized under Plain View

• But they moved stereo equipment to read serial numbers = unrelated to emergency

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Moving items = search

  • Plain View Doctrine requires:

    • Officer is lawfully present

    • Item is in plain view

    • Must have probable cause to seize—mere suspicion isn’t enough

Memory Trick:
🧠 “See it? Seize it. Move it? Prove it.”

Riley v. California (2014) – Phones & Privacy

• Riley arrested; police searched his cell phone without a warrant

• Found photos/videos used in gang-related case

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Cell phone searches require a warrant

  • Search incident to arrest does not apply to digital data

  • Phones contain vast amounts of personal information

  • No risk of harm to officers or evidence destruction

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Swipe = Search. Warrant First.”

Reasonable Suspicion – Investigative Stops

• Standard for brief detention or stop (e.g., Terry stop, car stop)

• Based on the totality of the circumstances

• Officer may not rely solely on training/experience or make a logical leap

• Must be fact-specific and grounded in observable behavior

• One innocent fact may not be enough, but several together can form suspicion

• Allows stop & limited investigation, not arrest

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Suspicion’s short – just check, don’t court.”

Probable Cause – Arrests & Warrants

• Higher standard than reasonable suspicion

• Based on facts and evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe:

  1. A crime was committed

  2. The person in question is responsible

• Needed for:

  • Arrest

  • Search or arrest warrants

• Defined in Beck v. Ohio

• Allows the officer to take full legal action (arrest/search)

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Probable proof? Time to move.”

U.S. v. Arvizu (2002) – Reasonable Suspicion for Vehicle Stops

• Border Patrol agent stopped van on an isolated road near the border

• Observed nervous behavior, odd driving, timing with shift change, and drug route

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Warrantless stop was legal

  • Only reasonable suspicion needed for vehicle stop

  • Courts must consider totality of the circumstances

  • Officer may rely on training and experience to form a particularized and objective basis

  • Reasonable suspicion does not require certainty

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Stack the facts, no warrant acts.”

Terry v. Ohio (1968) – Stop & Frisk Exception

• Officer observed men "casing" a store → patted down one and found a gun

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Stop = seizure, Frisk = search

  • Still reasonable without a warrant under special conditions

• Created Stop & Frisk Rule:

  • Must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity

  • Must have reasonable belief suspect is armed and dangerous

  • Frisk limited to weapons – protects officer safety

Memory Trick:
🧠 “See the threat, check the vest.”

Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement – 4th Amendment

The Constitution protects against unreasonable searches/seizures, but courts allow exceptions to the warrant requirement under specific conditions:

1. Terry Stop & Frisk (Terry v. Ohio, 1968)

   • Reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot

   • Person may be armed and dangerous

   • Allows limited pat-down for weapons (officer safety)

2. Plain View Doctrine

   • Officer must be lawfully present

   • Evidence must be clearly visible

   • Must have probable cause to seize

3. Plain Feel Doctrine

   • Applies during Terry frisk

   • If contraband is immediately apparent by touch, it may be seized

4. Location-Based Exceptions

   • No expectation of privacy in certain areas (e.g., open fields, trash on curb)

5. Automobile Exception

   • Probable cause allows officers to search vehicles without a warrant

   • Includes containers inside the car

6. Criminal Investigations / Exigent Circumstances

   • Police may act without a warrant if there's a risk of harm, evidence destruction, or suspect escape

7. Consent Searches

   • No warrant required if voluntary consent is given by someone with authority

8. Exclusionary Rule – Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

   • Evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment is inadmissible in court

   • Mapp v. Ohio applied this rule to state prosecutions

   • Designed to deter police misconduct

Memory Trick: “Please Let A Cop Catch Every Bad Criminal”

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) – Plain Feel Doctrine

• Police conducted a Terry frisk for weapons

• The officer felt a lump in the defendant's pocket, manipulated it, and found crack cocaine

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Created the “Plain Feel” Doctrine

  • Like Plain View, officers can seize non-weapon contraband if:

    • It’s immediately apparent

    • No manipulation is used to identify it

  • Officer squeezing the item made the search unconstitutional

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Feel it, don’t kneel it.”

Bond v. United States (2000) – Manipulation = Search

• Border Patrol agent squeezed overhead luggage on a bus

• Felt a brick-like object, opened it, and found drugs

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Travelers have a reasonable expectation of privacy in closed luggage

  • Manipulating the bag = a search under the 4th Amendment

  • No warrant and no exception applied → search invalid

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Squeeze it? You seize it—illegally.”

Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) – Flight Justifies a Stop

• Police saw suspect in a high drug area, and he fled upon seeing them

• Officers pursued, detained, and frisked him → found a weapon

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Unprovoked flight in a high-crime area gives rise to reasonable suspicion

  • Stop and frisk was lawful

• Concerns:

  • Subjective judgment

  • Contextual factors (e.g., race, neighborhood) may influence interpretation

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Run in the zone? You’re not alone.”

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) – Student Searches

• 14-year-old student caught smoking in school bathroom

• School official searched her purse → found marijuana

• SCOTUS Held:

  • School officials are state actors and subject to the 4th Amendment

  • However, they do not need probable cause

  • Search must be based on reasonable suspicion

  • Court balanced student privacy rights with the school’s educational mission

  • Search must be:

    • Justified at inception

    • Reasonably related to its objectives

    • Not excessively intrusive, considering the student’s age and gender

🧠 “Reasonable at school, but don’t strip the rule.”

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)

• Police set up DUI checkpoints to stop random drivers briefly

• SCOTUS Held:

  • This was a "seizure", but it was reasonable under the 4th Amendment

  • Balancing test applied:

    • Strong state interest in preventing drunk driving

    • Minimal intrusion on individual motorists

  • No individualized suspicion required

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Sip and stop—State’s safety on top.”

US v Martinez-Fuerte (1976) – Immigration Checkpoints Legal

• Conducted routine immigration stops at fixed interior checkpoints

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Checkpoints are constitutional

  • Minimal intrusion outweighed by government’s strong interest in controlling the border

  • No warrant or individualized suspicion required

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Border in sight? Checkpoint’s all right.”

Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) – Drug Checkpoints Invalid

• City conducted roadblocks to stop cars and use drug-sniffing dogs

• Purpose: General crime control, not public safety

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Unconstitutional

  • Must have reasonable suspicion for each stop

  • Government can’t use checkpoints for general criminal investigations

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Crime hunt trap? That’s a 4th Amendment slap.”

Maryland v. King (2013) – DNA Collection Exception

• Suspect arrested for a serious offense

• During booking, police took a cheek swab to collect DNA

• DNA matched another unsolved crime

• SCOTUS Held:

  • DNA swab = limited intrusion like fingerprints

  • Warrant not required

  • Legitimate government interest:

    • Identify suspect

    • Link suspect to other crimes

• Controversy: What if person isn’t charged or is acquitted?

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Swab at booking, not overreaching.”

Bernard v. Minnesota (2016) – Breath Test Warrant Exception

• Driver arrested for DUI, refused breathalyzer

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Breath test after arrest = no warrant needed

  • Considered a reasonable search under the Search Incident to Arrest doctrine

  • Minimal intrusion and critical to DUI enforcement

  • BUT: Blood test = more invasive

    • Involves piercing skin and reveals medical information

    • Warrant required for blood test

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Blow is okay, blood needs a tray.”
(Breath test fine without a warrant, blood test isn’t.)

Missouri v. McNeely (2013) – Warrant Required for Blood Draws

• McNeely arrested for speeding & swerving, suspected DUI

• Refused breath test, so police took him to hospital for forced blood draw without a warrant

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Unconstitutional search under the 4th Amendment

  • Natural dissipation of alcohol in blood ≠ automatic exigency

  • Each case must be evaluated individually for exigent circumstances

  • High intrusion into the body → strong privacy interest

  • Warrant is required unless genuine emergency

Key Principle:

• No blanket rule for DUI blood tests → must weigh government interest vs. bodily privacy

Memory Trick:

🧠 “No stick without a tick.”

Reasonable Warrantless Searches – Border, Airports, Drug Testing

Warrant and probable cause are not required in these contexts due to lower privacy expectations and compelling public interests:

1. Border Crossings

   • Customs and immigration enforcement

   • Searches of persons/vessels at borders or ports

   • No probable cause needed

   • Strong interest in national security and immigration control

2. Airport Screenings

   • TSA checks on passengers and luggage

   • Justified by need to prevent terrorism and ensure flight safety

   • Intrusions are minimally invasive and routine

3. Drug Testing (e.g., RR operators)

   • After railroad accidents, mandatory drug/alcohol testing allowed

   • Supported by public safety interest in transportation sectors

   • Upheld as reasonable under the 4th Amendment

Memory Trick:

🧠 “Planes, Trains, and Border Lanes.”

Consent Search Exception – 4th Amendment

A search is valid without a warrant or probable cause if consent is given—but there are rules:

• Consent must be voluntary, not the result of coercion, force, or deception

• Who can give consent?

  • Parent: Can consent to search a child’s room (especially if child is a minor and lives at home)

  • Roommate: Can consent to search shared/common areas

  • Landlord: Cannot give valid consent to search a tenant’s private space

• Scope of consent: Limited to what is agreed upon (e.g., one room, a bag)

• Police do not have to inform someone they can refuse consent, but it helps prove voluntariness

Memory Trick:

🧠 “Your space, your say – unless you gave it away.”

Automobile Exception – Warrant Not Required

Police can search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime.

Why?

• Lower expectation of privacy in vehicles (unlike homes)

• Inherent mobility of cars makes it impractical to get a warrant before evidence can be moved or destroyed

• Includes search of:

  • Passenger area

  • Trunk

  • Containers (e.g., backpacks, purses inside the car)

Key Cases:

• Carroll v. U.S. (1925) – Origin of the automobile exception

• California v. Acevedo (1991) – Allows search of containers if probable cause exists

Carroll v. U.S. (1925) – Mobile Vehicles Exception

• Police stopped a car without a warrant during Prohibition

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Warrantless car searches are valid if:

    1. There is probable cause

    2. The vehicle is readily mobile (exigent circumstance)

  • Distinction: Cars can flee, homes can’t

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Cars roll, get control.”

California v. Acevedo (1991)

• Extending Carroll – Containers in Cars

• Police saw suspect place bag in car trunk suspected to hold marijuana

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Police may search containers in vehicles if there is probable cause

  • Doesn’t matter if the container or the car is the focus

• Expanded Carroll to all containers inside vehicles

Memory Trick:
🧠 “If it fits, it gets hit—when probable cause is legit.”

Illinois v. Lidster (2004) – Info-Seeking Checkpoints Legal

• Roadblock sought info about a fatal hit-and-run

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Legal checkpoint – minimal intrusion

  • Purpose: Seek public help, not general crime control

  • Distinguished from Edmond (drug checkpoint)

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Ask, don’t accuse—it’s constitutionally approved.”

Collins v. Virginia (2018)

Automobile Exception Doesn’t Apply to Curtilage

• Police entered property, lifted tarp, found stolen motorcycle

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Curtilage = protected space, part of the home

  • Automobile exception does NOT override home privacy

  • Warrant required

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Home zone? Leave it alone.”

Weeks v. U.S. (1914) – Exclusionary Rule for Federal Cases

Federal agents entered Weeks’ home without a warrant and seized evidence of illegal gambling.

SCOTUS Held:

• Violated 4th Amendment

• Exclusionary Rule created: illegal evidence excluded in federal court

Key Principle: Evidence from warrantless federal searches must be excluded

Memory Trick: 🧠 "No warrant? No win in court."

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Police forced their way into Mapp’s home looking for a suspect without a valid warrant and found obscene materials instead.

SCOTUS Held:

• Applied Exclusionary Rule to state courts via the 14th Amendment

• All government actors must respect 4th Amendment rights

Key Principle: The exclusionary rule now applies to both federal and state officers.

Memory Trick: 🧠 "Map it to the states—no dirty evidence at the gates."

US v Leon(1984)

Police acted on a facially valid warrant later found to lack probable cause. Evidence was challenged.

SCOTUS Held:

• Evidence still admissible

• Good Faith Exception created: if officers reasonably rely on a warrant, evidence can be used

Key Principle: Mistakes made in good faith do not justify excluding evidence.

Memory Trick: 🧠 "Act in good faith, the evidence stays safe."

Nix v. Williams (1984)

After improper interrogation, police learned the location of a murder victim’s body. Search teams were close to finding the body on their own.

SCOTUS Held:

• Evidence was admissible under the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine

Key Principle: Evidence is allowed if it would have been found lawfully anyway.

Memory Trick: 🧠 "Would’ve found it anyway? You’re okay."

Herring v. U.S. (2009)

Police arrested Herring based on a recalled warrant due to a clerical error in another county’s system.

SCOTUS Held:

• Evidence not excluded

• Only reckless, deliberate, or systemic misconduct triggers exclusion

• Simple mistakes ≠ suppression

Key Principle: Negligent errors by police do not automatically require suppression of evidence.

Memory Trick: 🧠 "Error alone won’t dethrone."

5th Amendment – 5 Essential Rights

The 5th Amendment protects individuals from government abuse in legal procedures. It guarantees:

🧑‍⚖ Right to a Grand Jury – for capital/serious crimes

🚫 Freedom from Double Jeopardy – can't be tried twice for the same crime

🤐 Right Against Self-Incrimination – "I plead the Fifth!"

📢 Miranda Warnings – must be informed of rights before interrogation

⚖ Right to Due Process – fair procedures before depriving life, liberty, property

🏠 Eminent Domain Limit – government must compensate for taken prope

➡ Memory Trick:
Think “G-DIME” to remember the 5 rights:
G – Grand Jury
D – Double Jeopardy
I – Self-Incrimination
M – Miranda Warning
E – Eminent Domain

🔁 All wrapped in Due Process (fairness in the system)!

5th Amendment – Right to a Grand Jury

Guarantees the Right to a Grand Jury for serious federal offenses. This means:

No person can be charged with a serious crime (like a felony) unless a Grand Jury agrees there’s enough evidence.

This protects against unfair accusations from government officials.

Rooted in colonial fears of being unjustly charged by royal prosecutors.

Grand Jury acts as a buffer between the state and the accused.

📜 Text Excerpt:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…”

👨‍⚖ Exceptions: Military service during wartime/public danger.

5th Amendment – Right to a Grand Jury (Historical Context)

Definition:

• The Grand Jury requirement protects individuals from arbitrary government accusations, especially for serious (“infamous”) crimes like felonies (punishable by over a year in prison).

• It ensures that a neutral body of citizens—not just a prosecutor—reviews the evidence before someone is charged.

• This right was a response to the abuse of power by British monarchs and their appointed prosecutors.

Historical Notes:

• Seen as a safeguard against tyranny.

• Used by colonists in 6 of the original 13 colonies to defend against royally appointed local prosecutors.

• The goal: prevent the King or his agents from indicting citizens without community consent.

👑➡👥 “From the King to the People”

Grand Jury – Structure & Function (5th Amendment)

• A Grand Jury is made up of usually 23 citizens from the community.

• Their job is to investigate evidence and decide whether someone should be formally charged (indicted).

• Result Options:

  • ✅ True Bill = enough evidence → indictment issued

  • ❌ No True Bill = not enough evidence → no charges

• Grand Jury ≠ trial jury – they do not decide guilt, just whether the case should go to trial.

Historical Roots:

• Originated in England, where landowners advised traveling judges (magistrates) on who to charge.

• In the U.S., the Grand Jury indicts, then a Petit Jury (12 people) decides guilt or innocence at trial.

5th Amendment – Grand Jury: Federal Right Only (Hurtado v. CA, 1884)

• In Hurtado v. California (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the Grand Jury requirement in the 5th Amendment only applies at the federal level, not to the states.

• Facts: Hurtado shot and killed his wife’s lover. He was charged via information (a sworn prosecutor statement after a hearing), not a grand jury.

• Holding: States are not required to use a Grand Jury under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

• Impact:

  • About half of U.S. states use Grand Juries.

  • Others (like California) use information after a preliminary hearing with a judge.

  • California uses both in different circumstances.

🧩 “Not Incorporated = Not Required for States”

Grand Jury vs. Preliminary Hearing – What’s the Difference?

Definition:

🔹 Grand Jury (Federal/Some State Cases):

• Ex parte: Defendant and defense lawyer not present

• Only the prosecutor presents evidence

• Can consider inadmissible evidence

• Proceedings are secret (protects ongoing investigations or accused’s reputation)

• Indictment rate ≈ 95%

• Jury has broad discretion

• CA: Indictments can be challenged in court

🔹 Preliminary Hearing (Common in States):

• Public hearing before a judge

• Defendant and defense attorney can be present

• Both sides can present and cross-examine evidence

• Judge decides whether there is probable cause to proceed

• May offer more transparency and fairness to the accused

5th Amendment – Double Jeopardy

The Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being prosecuted twice for the same offense.

Text:

“...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…”

Key Points:

Jeopardy “attaches” when the jury is sworn in (or when the first witness is sworn in during a bench trial).

Applies to criminal cases.

If the same evidence is used in both prosecutions, courts may rule it’s the “same offense.”

You cannot be:

Retried after an acquittal

Retried after a conviction

Punished twice for the same crime by the same government

Memory Trick:

♻ “DJ = Double Jeopardy = Don’t Jump twice”

Double Jeopardy – Green v. United States (1957)

Definition:

Double Jeopardy prohibits the federal government from retrying someone for the same or similar crime once they’ve been acquitted.

Case: Green v. United States (1957)

Green was acquitted of first-degree murder, but convicted of second-degree.

He appealed, and the conviction was reversed.

The government then retried him for first-degree murder again — and won.

Supreme Court ruled this violated Double Jeopardy.

Once acquitted, the state cannot try again for the same offense.

Principle:

The government should not get multiple chances to convict using its vast resources.

Defendants shouldn't have to choose between appealing and risking harsher charges.

Memory Trick:

🔁 “Green = Go Once”

Double Jeopardy – Benton v. Maryland (1969)

Definition:
The 5th Amendment protection against Double Jeopardy applies to state governments through the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

• A person who is acquitted of a charge cannot be retried for that same charge, even if the trial is invalidated for unrelated reasons.

• Once acquitted, re-litigating that charge violates constitutional protection.

• This decision overturned earlier rulings that allowed states to retry previously acquitted charges.

Double Jeopardy – When Re-Trial Is Allowed

Double Jeopardy bars being tried twice for the same offense, but several exceptions allow retrial:

1. Mistrial / Hung Jury

   • If jury deadlocks (can’t reach verdict), gov't can retry

   • Mistrial is allowed if:

     • Both parties agree, or

     • Judge declares it due to necessity (e.g., misconduct or hung jury)

2. Appeal by the State

   • State can appeal legal rulings, e.g., to reinstate charges

   • No retrial allowed if there was a jury acquittal

3. Reversal on Appeal

   • If conviction is reversed on appeal, retrial is allowed

   • Exception: Not if reversed due to insufficient evidence (equivalent to acquittal)

4. Multiple Charges from One Act

   • Can be charged with multiple crimes for same conduct (e.g., robbery + assault + threat)

   • Can’t be punished multiple times for the same act, unless authorized by statute

5. Dual Sovereignty Doctrine

   • State and federal governments can both prosecute the same act

   • Common in civil rights violations or police brutality cases

   • Public policy reasons allow both jurisdictions to pursue justice

Memory Trick:

M – Mistrial

A – Appeal reversal (not acquittal)

R – Retrial after deadlock

S – State + Federal (dual sovereignty)

= Reasons the government CAN retry

U.S. v. Lara (2004) – Tribal + Federal = Separate Sovereigns

• Defendant convicted in Tribal Court for assaulting an officer

• Then prosecuted by the federal government for same conduct

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Not barred by Double Jeopardy

  • Tribal and Federal Governments are separate sovereigns

  • Each can prosecute the same act under their own laws

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Tribe and Feds, separate threads.”

Gamble v. U.S. (2019) – Dual Sovereignty Doctrine

• Gamble convicted under Alabama law for gun possession

• Then charged under federal law for same conduct

• SCOTUS Held (Justice Alito):

  • No Double Jeopardy violation

  • State and Federal governments are distinct sovereigns

  • “Same offense” refers to same law, not same act

  • Long-standing historical practice upheld

Memory Trick:
🧠 “State and Fed? Two beds.”
(Each government can "sleep" in their own legal system.)

Hudson v. U.S. (1997) – Civil Fines ≠ Criminal Prosecution

• Hudson was fined civilly for illegal banking activity

• Then criminally charged for same conduct

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Civil penalties by regulatory agencies do not trigger Double Jeopardy

  • Only criminal prosecutions are protected

  • Civil fines are non-punitive if not overly harsh

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Fine first? Jail can follow.”

Blockburger v. U.S. (1932) – Same Elements = Same Offense

• Defendant charged for multiple narcotics sales

• Some charges were under different statutes

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Each offense must require proof of an additional element

  • If one crime is a lesser included offense of another → Double Jeopardy applies

  • Known as the Blockburger Test

• Reaffirmed in U.S. v. Dixon (1993)

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Two laws, two flaws—okay. One law, one flaw—no way.”

U.S. v. Ursery (1996) – Civil Forfeiture Not Double Jeopardy

• Govt seized drug-related property (cash, cars) through civil forfeiture

• Defendant argued this was punishment, and a later criminal charge was Double Jeopardy

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Civil forfeiture is a separate, non-punitive process

  • It’s designed to remove illegal gains or tools of crime

  • Therefore, it does not violate Double Jeopardy Clause

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Take the cash, still bring the bash.”

Dowling v. U.S. (1990) – Acquittal ≠ Total Ban on Use of Evidence

• Defendant was acquitted of a home robbery with a ski mask

• In a later bank robbery trial, the same evidence (ski mask) was introduced

• SCOTUS Held:

  • Double Jeopardy doesn’t bar using evidence from a prior acquitted crime

  • Evidence can be used if it’s relevant to the new crime

  • Acquittal only means not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the event didn’t occur

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Acquitted, not omitted.”
(Past evidence can still be used even if you were acquitted.)

Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) – Civil Commitment After Sentence

• After serving a prison term for sexual offenses, the state sought civil commitment under a law targeting habitual sexual offenders

• Commitment is indefinite and requires a showing that the person has a mental abnormality and is likely to reoffend

• The commitment is to a hospital, not a prison

• Court ruled this action is:

  • Civil, not criminal in nature

  • Not considered punishment

  • Therefore, it does not violate Double Jeopardy

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Committed, not convicted—again.”

5th Amendment – Right Against Self-Incrimination

• States that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”

• Originally applied only to the federal government, later incorporated to the states

• Meant to protect individuals from coercive or abusive government power

• Ensures the burden is on the government to prove guilt using its own evidence

• Prevents forced confessions, inhumane treatment, and protects the fairness of the court system

Memory Trick:

🧠 “Speak by choice, not by force.”

5th Amendment – Historical Background of Self-Incrimination Clause

• In England, secret courts like the Star Chamber allowed judges to decide guilt behind closed doors

• Accused persons were compelled to testify under oath, forcing them to either admit guilt or commit perjury

• This practice was seen as abusive and unfair

• In the colonies, the King’s prosecutors often used these same coercive methods in court

• In response, several colonial governments adopted protections against self-incrimination in their state constitutions or charters

• These early protections resembled the modern grand jury system and formed the foundation for the 5th Amendment’s self-incrimination clause

Why Is the Right Against Self-Incrimination Important?

• Reflects the principle that the accused is presumed innocent

• Places the burden of proof on the government

• Prevents abuse by a powerful state with greater resources

• Ensures the government must prove guilt through evidence, not coerce a confession

• Protects against false or unreliable confessions, which often result from intimidation or pressure

• Reinforces fairness and due process in the justice system

Malloy v. Hogan (1964) – Self-Incrimination Applied to States

Facts:

• Man on probation after gambling conviction

• Refused to testify at a state gambling inquiry

• Held in contempt and jailed

SCOTUS Ruling:

• The 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination applies to the states

• Incorporated through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause

• Applies even in civil or administrative proceedings if answers may incriminate

Memory Trick:
🧠 "Federal or state, silence can’t wait."

Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944) – Coerced Confessions & Due Process

Facts:

• Suspect interrogated for 36 hours straight with minimal breaks

• Under spotlights, officers rotated in shifts

• Another suspect was threatened with mob violence

SCOTUS Ruling:

• Confessions were not voluntary

• Tactics were inherently coercive, even without physical violence

• Violated Due Process – only voluntary confessions are admissible

Memory Trick:
🧠 "No sleep, no speak."

Pre-Miranda Confession Test – Totality of Circumstances

• Before Miranda, courts reviewed whether confessions were voluntary by looking at all surrounding circumstances

• This approach provided inconsistent guidance to officers and lower courts

• No clear bright-line rule for what counts as coercion

• Led to uncertainty in applying 5th Amendment protections during police interrogation

Memory Trick:
🧠 “Too much gray, no clear way.”